Public Works Magazine June 2006

The cost of e-waste

Facilitating the recycling of discarded electronics is expensive, but not doing anything at all could be even more costly.

Source: PUBLIC WORKS MAGAZINE
Publication date: 06/01/2006

By Jason Meyers

Jenni Spinner Residents drive up to drop off their e-waste during a recent collection event in Lake Surich , III.; the village took in an estimated 38,000 to 40,000 pounds of material.

For public works departments, getting involved in the collection and recycling of electronic waste has become a question of not if, but how. With the life cycles of electronic equipment shrinking, the pile of junked gear mounting, and attention from regulators rising, e-waste is quickly becoming a highly visible and potentially volatile solid waste issue.

As attention increases, however, so does cost - and what doesn't go up is any kind of economic or logistical upside for cities and towns that commit themselves to jumping into the e-waste stream. Collecting and facilitating the processing of e-waste is complex and expensive, and the only real boon to municipalities involved in it is the community value and peace of mind - assuming that the municipality picks the right and responsible partners for a still unregulated process where the potential for deception and abuse is rampant.

Electronic waste still only represents 1% of the overall waste stream, but its potential impact on the environment is high. According to data that the American Public Works Association's (APWA) Solid Waste Committee recently presented in a Congressional briefing, Americans discarded approximately 2.5 million tons of used electronics in 2003 - items that regularly contain lead, mercury, and other components that are potentially harmful to the environment. Extrapolate that 2003 figure out even over the past three years - with innovation cycles for this kind of equipment shrinking and consumer tastes fickle - and the scale of the problem multiplies.

“Technology is moving so fast, and all of us want to have the latest and the best,” said Roger Flint, director of public works and utilities in Spokane , Wash. , and chairman of the APWA's solid waste committee. “Even if it gets reused, it doesn't get reused for very long. Right now it's just ending up in the trash.”

WHOSE PROBLEM IS IT?

Only four states currently have enacted legislation regarding e-waste: Washington , Maine, California, and Maryland. While those moves are encouraging, that kind of piecemeal approach introduces the possibility of confusion, particularly for equipment manufacturers and retailers whose businesses don't stop at state lines. The APWA is pushing for consistency between state regulations and federal mandates, and Flint said the state-level legislation will be good “pilot studies.”

“If there's not some uniformity, manufacturers and retailers are going to have a hard time,” he said. “We're advocating for a combined effort that regulates certain activity at the federal level, some part at the state level, and involvement at the local level - but no one party wants to or should have to bear the full burden. We haven't been advocating regulation, because then all of a sudden you're forcing someone to recycle something where a market may not yet exist.”

Advocates of e-waste recycling generally agree that while attention to the issue at the state and federal levels is very important, action at the local level is what ultimately will be the most effective.

“The public is used to dealing with garbage on a local level,” said Lynn Rubinstein, executive director of the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC), an organization that promotes and supports recycling efforts and the development of recycling markets across 10 eastern states, and nationally. “That's why this is working.”

Part of NERC's contribution to the e-waste effort is the model legislation it recently developed and released in conjunction with the Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference. The document, “An Act Providing for the Recovery and Recycling of Used Electronic Devices,” is designed to help promote statewide initiatives and infrastructure for the collection and recycling of e-waste. It was developed over a 14-month period in collaboration with more than 50 state legislators, electronics manufacturers, retailers, environmental groups, and local governments.

One of the biggest problems for municipal public works departments that want to get involved in e-waste collection and recycling is the cost of entry - a cost that, unlike other solid waste collection and processing sectors, offers little to no upside for the cities involved. The only thing driving public works departments to create collection events and help their residents deal with e-waste is their environmental conscience and their commitment to the community.

“It's extraordinarily easy to do, but it's also expensive,” said Rubinstein. “You are not going to get money back. It's the only waste stream I know of where, except for avoided disposal costs, there is no financial upside for municipalities.”

That said, however, the number of cities and towns getting into the e-waste stream clearly is on the rise, for reasons ranging from state-level pressure to residential responsibility. Again, few would argue against the importance of this area of solid waste, making it more of an issue of how and when rather than why or if.

WAYS AND MEANS

After determining - either by state mandate or by their own responsibility to their constituencies—that they're going to help their residents deal with e-waste, municipalities are faced with the question of exactly how to go about integrating e-waste into their processes. Several decisions must be made, ranging from how to structure collection activities to who to select as partners, if anyone.

“There's not one thing - it's a comprehensive approach,” said Flint. “We push for communities to have integrated solid waste management systems with enough flexibility to add and remove certain components.”

Flint added that just as with any other waste stream and collection activity - curbside recycling, for example, or drop-off events for household hazardous waste - ease of use is the primary factor that will get people involved and active.

“Above all, you have to make it easy for the consumer,” he said. “If it's cumbersome, people will just decide not to do it.” Many public works departments opt for partners, both to help them set up and execute collection events in their communities and to facilitate where materials go and how they are processed once they're collected. Here again, choosing the right partner based on their track record and their methods is critical, particularly in an industry sector where shady practices - such as exporting collected materials to developing countries where they are exploited for their remaining value and then improperly disposed of - are widespread.

“We're not a reseller, exporter, or landfiller,” said Timothy Osgood, director of corporate recycling for Inter-con Solutions, Chicago, which helps cities organize collection events and processes the material collected to varying degrees, depending on the material. “We remove it from the stream.”

Osgood maintained that the value of collecting and processing e-waste is in the community good, which makes how materials are handled that much more important. “It's good publicity to say you're doing a collection event and that you're keeping this out of the waste stream,” he said.

Municipalities that either opt to or are mandated to go with low-cost bidders for their services won't be doing themselves any favors with regard to e-waste, Osgood added. “If cost is the bottom line, we can't help them,” said Osgood. “If absolute protection of environmental liability - of keeping it out of landfills - is, then we can.”

For those cities that do choose partners for their e-waste efforts, knowing precisely how their partners handle the materials once they are collected is a critical part of the process.

“Exportation is a huge market,” said Osgood. “It's an unregulated industry. There's no stopping anyone from putting something in a container and shipping it overseas.”

Flint agreed that the “out of sight, out of mind” issue is a danger when it comes to e-waste, one any public works department must be wary of as they integrate e-waste collection into their solid waste program and select the right vendors are processes. “We might feel good, but in truth it went elsewhere and created an environmental problem for someone else,” said Flint .

Regardless of process, partnerships, legislation, or approaches, the clear fact is that e-waste is a disposal and environmental issue that has become paramount for municipalities - an issue that is much more significant than the percentage of solid waste it actually represents. Public works departments must acknowledge that fact, and their responsibility to their communities, by carefully creating an e-waste program that meets the needs of their departments and their constituents.

“The motivation is the residents,” said Rubinstein. “When they're expecting it and demanding it, it happens. The bottom line is that municipalities don't have a choice.”