This is a follow-up on the topic of CRT recycling, with significant inputs
from several sources, to whom I am indebted.
California
I had sent  the representative of California's Department of Toxic
Substances Control a copy of what I posted earlier, and he responded that it
was March, not January, that his department was approached by a group called
the Materials for the Future Foundation, representing electronics recyclers
and environmental organizations. As I mentioned before, because CRTs fail
the leach test, they are automatically hazardous (legally), so DTSC had no
choice but to act. I later asked him why, since it is the US EPA's rules
that are being violated by CRT disposal, that all states have not arrived at
the same conclusion. He answered
                As usual with the hazardous waste law it is not so clear
cut. Under federal law, most States incorporate the household hazardous
waste exemption in their regulatory programs. Therefore, a monitor or
television form a household is not hazardous waste; but, an identical piece
of equipment from a large generator [any entity that disposes of large
numbers of them] would be regulated as hazardous waste. Therefore, (and I am
only presuming this) in most states the landfills are simply pretending that
all the CRTs they see came from households.
                California never picked up the household hazardous waste
exemption. Thus, we do not encounter the bizarre situation of having two
identical items (e.g., two computer monitors) one of which is hazardous
waste and the other not. We apply the same test to all waste and it is
either hazardous or it is not. Of course, we have regulations and State
funded household hazardous waste programs that make it easier for everyday
people to responsibly get rid of the hazardous waste they generate. Right
now, we are working on increasing the funding of those programs to
accommodate the CRTs that are diverted, as a result of the regulations.

Massachusetts
I was contacted by Robin Ingenthron, formerly Recycling Director for the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and now recently
appointed VP of the state's CRT collection and recycling company,
Electronicycle http://www.electronicycle.com. (The company has just moved
into larger facilities and the web site isn't up to date.)
He points out that the cost of CRT recycling is coming down, and that his
company charges about half what other states charge to recycle, because of
high volume. I asked him whether he was predicting a time when recyclers
would pay consumers for CRTs. His response was that he predicted a time when
the cost of recycling was at parity with the properly calculated cost of
disposal. If Mr. Ingenthron is right, it is conceivable that a time may come
(should disposal costs ever be charged on the basis of amount rather than as
a flat fee) CRT recycling would no longer need to be subsidized. I know of
no such prospect for recycling of other electronic products. He also said
that there is a significant need for enabling technology: a better way to
separate the CRT face plate, which contains barium and is worth about $800
per ton, from the funnel, which contains the lead. He added some interesting
information:
                There is already fierce competition for repairable 1997+
monitors, for example (while we don't repair them in the US, where
journeymen CRT electricians charge $20 per hour, they DO repair them in
Mexico or Pakistan where master electricians charge $2 per hour). There was
no competition for used monitors 2 years ago. As more companies have gotten
into this, we have learned where the "cherries" are and that's where the
competition starts.
                The cost of strip mining copper, gold, etc. makes circuit
board and wire recycling a hot commodity, too. Circuit board refining really
just got started in the last decade, though its the older (1970s-80s)
circuit boards which have the most value (one reason computers keep getting
cheaper is they keep figuring out ways to put less an less strip-mined gold
in them). There's an odd dynamic where recent PCs have reuse/added value and
are hot, then older ones get less valuable, then the REALLY old ones are
more valuable again, a reverse normal curve because of the high metal
content in the older PCs.
Ingenthron adds:
                Right now the biggest problem is that people have trouble
doing "depreciation" in their heads, and think because a 386 cost them $1000
it must be worth sticking in the attic rather than reselling it in 1997 when
they bought the P1. If people handled cars the way they do PCs (hanging on
to them for no reason long after they quit using them), the average price of
handling cars at "end of life" would be harder for the free market to carry.

Resources for the Future
Dan Kallin posted a link to a report issued by Resources for the Future on
the value of CRT recycling, and quoted the abstract. As other reports do, it
repeats a discussion of possible risks to the environment from incineration
and landfilling. Unlike other reports, it arrives at the unorthodox view
(although rather muted) that CRT recycling is not worth doing on
environmental grounds [i.e., if it must be subsidized]. I repeat the final
sentence of the abstract: "In both cases [prohibiting incineration and
landfilling], the costs of the policies exceed the value of the avoided
health effects of CRT disposal." Here's an excerpt from the conclusions
(p.51):
                Finally, the benefits of reducing airborne emissions of lead
associated with CRT incineration appear to be small. Other end-of-life
benefits or environmental benefits that may be achievable earlier in the CRT
lifecycle would need to be large to justify the costs associated with policy
actions that induce increased storage and recycling. If the goal of a policy
is to reduce the potential health damages associated with incineration of
lead, banning incineration of CRTs is much more cost-effective than banning
all forms of disposal. A ban on landfilling and incineration of used
monitors results in an average disposal cost of almost $20 per monitor while
a ban on incineration results in an average cost of just more than $3 per
monitor.
To be sure that I hadn't misunderstood, I called the principal author, Dr.
Molly Macauley (she's an economist), and she confirmed my understanding. I
asked her about the reaction she has seen to the paper (issued in June), and
she said it had been minimal. She intends to issue a shorter report this
fall, and hopes that there will be more attention given to it. I was curious
as to who paid for the study. It was the country of Japan, and her group was
free to pick the topic. There is thus no conflict of interest, which does
not apply to most reports that one sees.

EIA Environmental Issues Council
It is amazing to me how much CRT-related legislative activity has been going
on all over the US. (Who's behind all this?) The EIA has just issued a
report on state legislation relating to end-of-life electronics, among many
other reports prepared for its 2001/02 Environmental Policy Outlook meeting
held yesterday. I list below a sampling of efforts relating to recycling of
CRTs that were introduced into state legislatures this year. Some have been
made law; the remainder will no doubt be proposed at the next opportunity.
Coming soon to a state near you. As I've mentioned before, the EIA favors
recycling end-of-life electronic products and even has a web site for it.
(Note also the proposed New York law relating to labeling electronic
products made with solder that contains lead.)
Just think how hard it would be to bring Dr. Macauley's report to the
attention of the right people in all those states and be able to counter the
influence of so many pro-recycling lobbyists. There's no one to represent
consumers and taxpayers in this matter in the US, any more than in Europe.
So, barring a miracle, we will all probably pay to keep unwanted electronics
out of incinerators and landfills, to no one's benefit except the recyclers
and the activists.
I am sure that part of the driving force for implementing recycling is
sustainability (note the name of the group that approached California's
DTSC), a topic that was discussed in this forum a long time ago and not
since - the idea that we need to sacrifice for the benefit of future
generations (how many?), so there will still be some lead - and other
elements - left in the ground as ore for them to use. Since these groups
would be happiest if no one used lead for anything, they have a bit of a
problem asking for us to recycle for this altruistic reason, and of course,
as always, they offer no cost-benefit analysis.

This just in:
The International Society for Industrial Ecology's first annual meeting, The
Science and Culture of Industrial Ecology, will take place 12-14 November,
2001 in the Netherlands. According to its web site, "ISIE is a new society
that promotes industrial ecology as a way of finding innovative solutions to
complicated environmental problems and facilitates communication among
scientists, engineers, policymakers, mangers and advocates who are
interested in how environmental concerns and economic activities can be
better understood." (Of course, I believe that the only thing that makes
disposal of electronic products a "complicated environmental problem" is
that a crisis has been created out of thin air, and that just showing that
the emperor has no clothing doesn't solve it.) For more info, go to
http://www.yale.edu/is4ie.

Selected State Bills Relating to CRT Disposal.
Source: EIA Environmental Issues Council "State Legislation End of Life
Electronics 2001 (August 16, 2001)"
Arkansas SB 807 (Law) The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality may
establish and implement rules and regulations banning the disposal of all
computer and electronic equipment in Arkansas landfills.
Colorado H1106 (Law) Creates a CRT Recycling Account; establishes a CRT
Pilot Program to encourage private industry to undertake research and
development of new technologies for the recycling, disposal, and waste
minimization of CRTs through grants and loans.
Connecticut H6199 (Governor expected to sign) Requires the recycling of
computers and CRT's to reduce solid and hazardous waste in landfills.
Prohibits disposal of PCs and CRTs in landfills.
Georgia HB 2 (Action deferred to January) Creates a 6 person computer
equipment disposal and recycling council Goal: Keep computers out of waste
stream.
Illinois HB 983 (Referred to committee) Bans CRT disposal.
Maryland  H-111 (Unfavorable report by committee) Prohibits disposal of CRT
from computer monitor or TV after December 31, 2004, prohibits solid waste
facilities from accepting devices.
Massachusetts HD-3154  (No further action) Relates to Disposal of CRTs, ban
disposal and impose manufacturer mandates to take back electronics.
Nebraska L 644 (Held until next session) Provides for recycling of
electronics, creates an Electronic Equipment Recycling Program, adopt the
electronic equipment recycling act.  Fee of $5.00 on sale after January 1,
2002 to be paid by consumer to fund the electronic equipment-recycling fund.
Ban on disposal of electronic equipment, solid waste facilities may not
accept electronic equipment in mixed solid waste.
New Jersey A2958 (Possible further action in September) Prohibits disposal
of used computers as solid waste.
New York AB 2950 (No further action) Changes the penalty for a violation of
provisions requiring that the lead content of solder be conspicuously noted
on the package thereof, from that of a civil penalty to that of a Class B
misdemeanor.
Oregon Product Stewardship Bill (No action this session) Purpose of product
stewardship is to achieve waste prevention, resource efficiency and
sustainable product design through full-cost accounting, product design
changes and improvements in product manufacturing, distribution and use.
The Department of Environmental Quality shall form a "Product Group" for
each priority product.  The product group shall develop an action plan that
includes specific targets, timelines, implementation strategies, reporting
requirements and alternative strategies for any target that is not met
within the identified timeline.  The Environmental Quality Commission may
adopt any rules and guidelines that are needed to implement the action plan
developed by the product group.


Gordon Davy
Baltimore, MD
[log in to unmask]
410-993-7399

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------