SCN: Recycling

[Steve]

x-no-archive: yes

================================


(Jon Skillings, ZDNet)---Once a week, a truck stops at a facility run 
by the Public Service Enterprise Group in Paulsboro, N.J., loaded 
with desktop computers, laptops, fax machines, photocopiers, 
television sets and video recorders.  

Many of the computers will be fully refurbished, getting clean hard 
drives, repaired motherboards, and even some elbow grease to 
wipe away unsightly smudges. The remaining hardware that is 
deemed unsalvageable will be dismantled for parts: plastic will be 
smelted, lead and zinc reclaimed, gold and silver extracted.  

"For all our waste, there is no waste," said Gary Wohler, investment 
recovery specialist of Public Service Enterprise. Last year, the 
energy services company recycled 766 computers, 814 monitors 
and 31 printers this way.  

It is a telling sign that a truck loaded with expensive electronics is 
working for the sake of environmentalism in a place like New Jersey 
- home to the "Sopranos" and a state not widely known for its 
ecological sensitivities. But New Jersey is one of a handful of states 
with an activist bent, putting increasing pressure on electronics 
makers to address what some circles see as as a worldwide 
environmental threat. And Wohler's company is one of many that 
has discovered recycling religion.  

Two decades after becoming perhaps the most indispensable fixture 
of the modern workplace, the personal computer is confronting an 
ugly and unavoidable truth: As with all other electronic devices 
powering the Information Age, it will eventually end up like any other 
product--in the garbage heap. In fact, watchdog groups say PCs are 
going out of service faster than they are being produced.  

"Most of these things are still sitting on shelves or in warehouses," 
said Jeffrey Tumarkin, team leader at the Environmental Protection 
Agency's WasteWise program, which has some 1,100 participants, 
from Anheuser Busch and Eastman Kodak to mom-and-pop stores, 
schools and state governments. "For companies that have 
thousands, it's a huge issue."  

Regulators, corporations and environmental groups around the 
globe are struggling to decide how to dispose of a seemingly 
endless supply of PCs and who should be held responsible for 
keeping tons of hazardous waste out of the environment. Although 
concerns over discarded computers have been voiced for years, the 
debate is coming to a head with the threat--and increasing actuality--
of government action worldwide.  

State and national governments and environmental groups are 
pointing to PC makers to take responsibility. But companies argue 
that their counterparts in other industries, such as automakers, are 
not held similarly accountable for their junked products. Moreover, 
the issue could not come at a worse time for computer hardware 
manufacturers, which have been squeezed by eroding profit 
margins and an overall slowdown in the technology industry.  

Legislation pending in the European Union, for instance, "would be 
very costly," said John Minter, environmental affairs representative 
at Dell Computer. "Somehow, manufacturers would be incurring that 
cost."  

As the debate continues, the pile of old PCs keeps growing. The 
National Safety Council estimates that, in 2002 alone, the number of 
PCs becoming obsolete will outrun the number of new PCs hitting 
the market by some 3.4 million. Overall, the EPA estimates, 
computers and other electronic equipment account for about 220 
million tons of waste per year in the United States.  

And volume is only the beginning of the ecological issues posed by 
decaying PCs. The machinery also contains elements like lead, 
mercury and arsenic that can be classified as hazardous waste.  

"We're not talking Love Canal, but we are talking about some real 
potential problems," said H. Scott Matthews, research director in the 
Green Design Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University, referring to 
the Buffalo, N.Y., toxic waste scandal of the 1970s.  

Given such important health issues, government agencies and 
environmental groups say their main concern is with proper 
disposal, an issue that defies easy solutions. Once the machines 
are past the point of being resold in corporate garage sales or 
donated to charitable groups, that means recycling--separating the 
raw materials to be processed for reuse--and containing hazardous 
materials.  

A first step in a cooperative approach came last month when 
representatives of government, industry and environmental groups 
met to establish the National Electronics Product Stewardship 
Initiative. In a series of discussions over the course of the next 
year, the 45 participants aim to come to an agreement on a system 
for electronics disposal. Other issues, including hazardous 
materials and product design, remain highly contentious and will not 
be on the table.  

The goal is to figure out "how to get from what some say is an 11 
percent (rate of) recycling and reuse to a much higher number, and 
over what period of time," said Gary Davis, director of the Center for 
Clean Products and Clean Technologies at the University of 
Tennessee at Knoxville, who is serving as the moderator for the 
discussions. "Everyone agrees that it needs to increase, and so 
we're starting from here."  

Although they support recycling efforts, computer makers say 
consumers must shoulder a large part of the burden for those 
initiatives to succeed. Companies such as IBM, Dell Computer and 
Sony Electronics have recently launched recycling and reuse 
programs aimed primarily at consumers, and the Electronic 
Industries Alliance trade group has drafted an initiative on the issue. 
 
Their work is something of a pre-emptive strike. The industry, which 
has historically clamored against any government supervision, 
wants to avoid having bureaucrats in Washington, Tokyo, Brussels 
or Boston tell it what to do on the issue.  

"Either we solve the problem ourselves as an industry, or we'll have 
government try to solve the problem," said Mark Small, vice 
president of environmental affairs at Sony.  

Many governments appear willing to do just that.  

The International Association of Electronics Recyclers reports that 
nine countries already have corporate "take back" laws for 
discarded electronics--including computers in some cases--and that 
22 more countries will join them within five years. In Japan, for 
example, a law went into effect last month requiring manufacturers 
to take back used TVs, refrigerators, washing machines and air 
conditioners. Computer equipment isn't covered in the law but could 
be in the future.  

In the United States, 45 mercury-related and 21 electronics bills 
have been introduced at the state level, with bills in Oregon and 
Arkansas proposing fees on the purchase of PCs to pay for 
recycling, according to the association. April marked the first 
anniversary of a law in Massachusetts that bans CRT (cathode-ray 
tube) monitors from landfills, and other states are considering 
similar measures.  

"In the next four years, the issue of computer pollution is going to 
increase and increase," said Jeremiah Baumann, environmental 
health advocate at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "The 
computer industry is going to have to face this."  

Perhaps the best road map for U.S. recycling legislation can be 
found in Europe. A key stimulus there comes from the European 
Union, which through its parliamentary arm is working to pull 
various existing and proposed national programs into a united front 
through legislation known as the WEEE (Waste Electrical and 
Electronic Equipment) Directive, which encompasses not just 
computers and related devices, but also video games, digital 
cameras, refrigerators, washing machines, toasters and hair dryers. 
 
The European Parliament this month will have a key vote on 
legislation that would require electronics manufacturers to phase out 
elements such as lead and mercury and to take back used products. 
 
"As the (legislation) moves in Europe, that's going to move the 
debate for the rest of the world," said Dell's Minter.  

The WEEE Directive sets a target date of December 2005 to begin 
annual collection of, on average, at least 9 pounds per inhabitant 
from private households. A related directive sets January 2008 as 
the date by which manufacturers must find replacements for lead, 
mercury and cadmium, as well as for chemicals such as flame 
retardants that show up in circuit boards and plastic covers.  

The EU adheres to what it calls the "polluter pays" principle, 
according to which electronics makers must be held accountable for 
treatment, recovery and disposal of their products when they 
become waste and that private households should be able to return 
the products free of charge.  

This doctrine "means extending the legal, moral and financial 
responsibility of producers," said Ted Smith, executive director of 
the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, an advocacy group focused on 
the high-tech sector. It is a government's way of telling 
manufacturers, "your responsibility goes beyond the initial sale and 
through the life cycle, including disposal," he added.  

It's the issue of disposal that has drawn manufacturers' attention. 
They're worried about the logistics--and especially about how it will 
translate into dollars and cents.  

"The recycling targets that were set are pretty high," Minter said. 
"It's not certain how achievable they are. It's never been done 
before on this scale."  

The EU expects the net costs of its collection and recycling 
requirements for all household electronic equipment to total between 
$450 million and $800 million per year in its 15 member states, with 
commercial equipment adding roughly 20 percent to those costs. For 
the individual consumer, the requirements would likely mean a 
premium of about 1 percent for most electronic goods, and as much 
as 3 percent for monitors, according to EU estimates. That could add 
some $10 to $50 to the typical price of a PC.  

Or the cost could come when consumers get rid of their old 
equipment. In a recycling program IBM launched last November, the 
company is charging $29.99 for consumers and small businesses to 
ship it any brand of PC, monitor, printer or peripheral. Retailer Best 
Buy, which will be launching its own electronics recycling initiative 
later this year, charged between $10 and $25 per device in a pilot 
program last year, according to a spokesman.  

"Economies of scale will play a big role," said Tony Hainault, a 
policy analyst with Minnesota's Office of Environmental Assistance, 
which worked with Sony to set up a recycling program for the 
consumer giant's products. "It will be important to collect a large 
volume of this material to make it cost-effective to recycle."  

In the end, as with many environmental issues, the success of 
computer recycling may rest with the individual.  

As the EPA's Tumarkin put it: "We say it's on everyone in the supply 
chain, from manufacturer to consumer." --- How do you get rid of it? 
Old computers don't just fade away--and that's where the problem 
begins.  

Just ask IBM, which handled 60,000 tons of computer equipment at 
the end of its useful life in 1999, coming just from equipment it 
leased and its own internal operations.  

But that volume is nothing compared with the avalanche of old 
machines that could soon bury Big Blue and other computer makers 
if pending legislation in Europe and elsewhere requires them to take 
back their products. The EPA estimates that 75 percent of obsolete 
electronics are still gathering dust in storerooms and attics.  

The reason behind such warehousing of useless products is simple: 
No one agrees on the best way to dispose of them.  

"There's still not an infrastructure for recycling electronics as there 
is for newspapers," said Renee St. Denis, manager of product 
recycling solutions for Hewlett-Packard. It is, she said, "an industry 
that's still evolving."  

The major obstacle impeding progress of electronics recycling is the 
uniquely hazardous nature of the material. Those on all sides of the 
issue are focused on two primary concerns: the sheer number of 
devices involved and the environmental risks posed by certain 
components if they are improperly discarded.  

Of most concern are heavy metals such as lead, mercury and 
cadmium, as well as chlorofluorocarbons and brominated flame 
retardants, which can seep from landfills into water supplies or waft 
from incinerators into the atmosphere.  

"The immediate problem is a solid waste problem," said the U.S. 
Public Interest Research Group's Jeremiah Baumann. "The more 
fundamental problem is the use of toxic metals, heavy metals, in 
computers."  

The potential for harm from many of those elements has been well 
established and has forced changes in consumer products. Lead, for 
instance, has been banned from gasoline and household paints, and 
high mercury levels have kept certain fish off restaurant menus for 
years.  

The exact extent of the threat from those elements in PCs and 
related devices, however, has not yet been established.  

"What is known is that PCs will leach, can leach and do leach," said 
Ted Smith of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, which estimates 
that 40 percent of the lead in landfills comes from consumer 
electronics. Smith acknowledged the need for more testing but said, 
"What is known is that if you burn this stuff, the metals don't burn 
and get back out into the environment."  

The European Union says the hazardous content of electrical and 
electronic equipment will cause "major environmental problems" if 
obsolete machines are not suitably treated--and that lack of proper 
treatment is the norm, with more than 90 percent of electronic waste 
dumped in landfills, incinerated or recovered without proper 
precautions.  

Those companies that do follow careful cleanup procedures face yet 
another daunting challenge: the financial cost of doing things right.  

Last year, the Public Service Enterprise Group--a partner of the 
EPA's WasteWise program--resold 128 computer systems and 150 
monitors and donated just over 400 computer systems to 
community organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, on top 
of several hundred that it sent off for recycling. The cost was 
$130,000, but the equipment that was sold raised only about 
$43,000.  

"This operation runs in the red," said Gary Wohler of the enterprise 
group. "Our impression is that the market for this stuff is somewhat 
limited--it's becoming somewhat saturated now."  

HP has had costly experiences as well. The company runs its own 
recycling operation, which deals with some 1,500 to 1,700 tons of 
obsolete systems per month. The program is run jointly with 
Canadian mining company Noranda, which sees an opportunity to 
mine for materials from PCs that it otherwise would dig out of the 
ground.  

The returns hardly constitute a moneymaking operation. "We pay 
Noranda to process this material," HP's St. Denis said. "It's 
definitely a cost business for us, but one that we feel is important to 
participate in."  

Not all companies have had such expensive experiences. Sony's 
Mark Small said his company's costs were just "pennies per pound" 
in a 1999 pilot recycling program with the state of Minnesota. Sony 
believes that in a five-year, national program it would be possible to 
"get recycling costs down to zero, or at least below landfill costs," 
he added.  

The manageable costs were particularly surprising because the 
project focused on the removal of residential products, in part 
because their relative lack of uniformity makes them more 
expensive to process. The program collected nearly 700 tons of 
used electronic products--about 10 percent of them PCs and 
monitors--at a cost of just under $300 per ton.  

"One thing we learned in our project is that it actually costs a lot 
less than people thought," said Tony Hainault of Minnesota's Office 
of Environmental Assistance. Although Sony's experience appears 
to be the exception, he is hopeful that a solution for wide-scale 
recycling may not be far off.  

"The fundamentals of the infrastructure are all in place," Hainault 
said. "It's just a matter of will, to decide now is the time to do this." ---
--- Redesigning the PC All parties involved in the recycling debate 
agree there is only one way to achieve environmental safety in 
computer disposal: Redesign the hardware from scratch.  

The agreement ends quickly, however, when it comes to the speed 
at which careful design should happen.  

Critics say the computer industry, for all its vaunted innovation, is 
as guilty of stonewalling as other businesses that have resisted 
calls for safer, cleaner products. PC makers counter that they are 
light years ahead of other industries with far more obvious pollution 
problems, even though they operate under harrowing deadlines and 
competitive pressures.  

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition's Ted Smith says those tight time 
constraints are a big part of the problem.  

"The electronics industry is so oriented to today," said Smith, whose 
organization monitors the environmental practices of computer 
makers. "To get them to look into the future is the real challenge."  

Smith compares the computer industry today to the U.S. automobile 
industry in the 1970s, when it was confronted with Japanese cars 
that were more fuel efficient and thus had less of an impact on the 
environment. "Prevention is always not only better but cheaper than 
cleanup. You can pay now or you can pay later," he said.  

Dell's John Minter also uses the auto industry for comparison but 
has a different perspective.  

"By no means do I think the industry has had its head in the sand," 
he said. "We really are probably a lot farther ahead than the auto 
industry was."  

The obstacles to pollutant-free computing center on the raw 
elements that make these machines tick. A primary offender is lead, 
which is used routinely on circuit boards and is an essential 
component of CRTs that blocks radiation. 

The densest of elements used in computers, lead is also one of the 
most resistant to change. Even highly toxic materials like mercury 
and arsenic take a back seat to this heavy metal.  

"Right now, the main concern is with lead," said Gordon Hui, an 
analyst in the EPA's Extended Product Responsibility program. "It's 
hard to assess what might be the toxicity of other electronics 
components."  

But replacements for lead are slow in coming. Although the element 
has been virtually eliminated from the front panel of glass, the 
industry has been less successful in finding alternatives to lead in 
other parts of the monitor. (To enhance the degree to which desktop 
monitors are recyclable, U.S. manufacturers standardized funnel 
glass in the early 1990s.) Progress on alternatives to lead in solder 
also has been slow.  

The amount of lead varies depending on the monitor and on who's 
doing the measuring. The EPA says the average is about 4 pounds, 
while California's Department of Toxic Substances and Control says 
5 to 7 pounds. IBM estimates that its 17-inch monitor has 1.1 
pounds, according to Wayne Balta, director of corporate 
environmental affairs at Big Blue.  

The difficulty of finding a technically feasible substitute for lead has 
prompted the European Community to revise its proposed 
legislation targeting hazardous materials in electronics equipment. 
As the proposal now stands, lead in computer monitors is exempt 
from general regulations aimed at phasing out elements.  

The move toward more environmentally friendly PCs and 
peripherals seems fraught with trade-offs. The increasing popularity 
of flat-panel screens as a replacement for CRT monitors, for 
instance, could reduce the risks posed by lead but would probably 
introduce a greater amount of mercury into the equation.  

Companies are quick to point out that cleanup programs may pose 
problems of their own. The Electronic Industries Alliance urges 
consumers to write to elected officials to oppose "misguided" 
attempts to ban mercury from electronics or to mandate electronics 
recycling.  

Bans on mercury--and thus energy-efficient mercury lamps--"may 
actually have an adverse effect on the environment" because they 
would lead to greater release of mercury from coal-fired electric 
power plants and would "impose large costs on the industry and, in 
turn, on consumers," according to a posting on the industry 
alliance's Web site.  

It is important, IBM's Balta says, "to make sure the cure isn't worse 
than the disease."  

"Design for environment" If the heavy metals in computers make for 
rather intractable challenges, PC makers have found greater 
success in making it easier to upgrade aging but still functional 
machines and to take apart obsolete ones. It's an approach the 
industry refers to as "design for environment."  

The EIA, for example, points to Apple's use of an access door and 
modular design in its Power Mac line to allow easy installation, 
upgrading and servicing of expansion cards, memory and storage 
devices. In that same vein, IBM says it has reduced the variety of 
screws, bolts, plastics and glues in its products, changes that make 
it easier for recyclers to disassemble and process old computers.  

But other design impulses may get in the way. "The problem is the 
whole faster, cheaper, smaller push," said Gary Davis of the Center 
for Clean Products and Clean Technologies at the University of 
Tennessee. "When things get cheaper, they tend to lose their value 
for recycling and reuse."  

Indeed, the demand for recycled products remains modest at best.  

The European Union, which has put a great deal of pressure on 
electronics makers to take responsibility for obsolete products, 
acknowledges that producers have "hardly any economic incentive" 
to factor waste management into the design stage. But it believes its 
doctrine of extended producer responsibility and mandates for 
product take-back and recycling will provide that incentive.  

The EU's parliamentary arm also is examining a proposal to 
improve waste management at the product design and manufacture 
stage. That sort of effort is particularly offensive to an industry that 
prides itself on its voluntary achievements and independence.  

"It's inevitable that design will play a role," said Holly Evans of the 
Electronic Industries Alliance. "But industry is opposed to 
government suddenly telling them how to design their products, so 
that's sort of a touchy area."  

Given such vastly different political perspectives, on top of already-
complicated engineering issues, many believe that some form of 
pollution is probably inevitable if computing technology continues to 
play an important role in society.  

The Green Design Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University is 
apparently bracing for that reality in this posting on its Web site: 
"Generally speaking, it will be impossible to remove all toxics from 
the design of computers."  

Copyright 2001 ZD Inc.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *