[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ELECTRONIC WASTE: INVESTING IN
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION TO
REUSE, REDUCE, AND RECYCLE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 11, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-543 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
February 11, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chair, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Brian Bilbray, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Valerie Thomas, Anderson Interface Associate Professor of
Natural Systems, School of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
and School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 19
Dr. Paul T. Anastas, Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in
the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment, School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies; Director, Center for Green
Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale University
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement with Julie B. Zimmerman, Center for Green
Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale University........... 21
Biography.................................................... 31
Mr. Phillip J. Bond, President, TechAmerica
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Biography.................................................... 35
Mr. Jeff Omelchuck, Executive Director, Green Electronics
Council, Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT)
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Biography.................................................... 39
Mr. Willie Cade, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, PC
Rebuilders and Recyclers, Home of the Computers for Schools
Program
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 43
Discussion....................................................... 43
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Valerie Thomas, Anderson Interface Associate Professor of
Natural Systems, School of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
and School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology... 62
Dr. Paul T. Anastas, Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in
the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment, School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies; Director, Center for Green
Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale University............... 64
Mr. Phillip J. Bond, President, TechAmerica...................... 67
Mr. Jeff Omelchuck, Executive Director, Green Electronics
Council, Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT)........................................................ 69
Mr. Willie Cade, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, PC
Rebuilders and Recyclers, Home of the Computers for Schools
Program........................................................ 72
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement by Representative Mike Thompson from the 1st District
of California.................................................. 76
Closing the Loop: Electronics Design to Enhance Reuse/Recycling
Value, Final Report, January 2009, Conducted by the Green
Electronics Council in collaboration with the National Center
for Electronics Recycling and Resource Recycling, Inc.......... 77
Discussion Draft................................................. 112
ELECTRONIC WASTE: INVESTING IN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION TO REUSE,
REDUCE, AND RECYCLE
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Electronic Waste: Investing in
Research and Innovation to
Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle
wednesday, february 11, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On February 11, 2009, the Science and Technology Committee will
receive testimony on draft legislation entitled ``The Electronic Waste
Research and Development Act of 2009.'' Witnesses will provide their
comments on, and suggestions to, the bill. They will also discuss ways
in which research and development (R&D) can help address the challenge
of managing the disposal of electronics products in the United States.
Five witnesses, representing perspectives from academia, a non-profit,
electronics producers, and electronics recyclers, will offer testimony.
Witnesses
Dr. Valerie Thomas, Anderson Interface Associate
Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Thomas will
discuss her research on innovative methods to manage electronic
waste and the challenges facing the recycling and re-use of
electronic products.
Dr. Paul Anastas, Teresa and H. John Heinz III
Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment and
Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green
Engineering, Yale University. Dr. Anastas will discuss the
applicability of research in green chemistry and engineering to
the electronics sector.
Mr. Philip Bond, President, Technology Association of
America. Mr. Bond will discuss ways in which innovation through
R&D could help electronics manufacturers address the challenge
of electronic waste. He will also give his views on promoting
collaboration between industry and non-industry researchers to
encourage the transfer of successful research into products.
Mr. Jeff Omelchuck, Executive Director, Green
Electronic Council and Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT). Mr. Omelchuck will discuss the
development and utility of EPEAT, challenges to making existing
electronics products more environmentally friendly, and ways in
which R&D could address these challenges.
Mr. Willie Cade, Chief Executive Officer, PC
Rebuilders and Recyclers. Mr. Cade will describe the challenges
faced by electronics refurbishers and recyclers, and discuss
ways to promote collaboration between academic researchers and
the recycling and refurbishing businesses.
Issues and Concerns
Electronic waste, or e-waste, the term used to
describe used televisions, computers, cell phones, monitors,
etc., that are ready for discard, is a growing problem in the
U.S. and worldwide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimated that between 1980 and 2004, two billion electronic
products were sold in the U.S. Of these they estimated just
over half were still in use, while 42 percent had been disposed
of and nine percent were in storage. Of the amount disposed of,
only 11 percent reached recyclers. The rest went to
landfills.\1\ Electronics are bulky and contain hazardous
materials that pose concerns for disposal in landfills. Due to
the involvement of State and local governments, environmental
groups, and electronics producers, more of these products are
being recycled. However, as described below, there are still
many hurdles to cost-effective, nationwide electronics
recycling. Additionally, the biggest environmental footprint
for electronics arises out of their production. Enabling
consumers to use (or re-use) these products longer could reduce
the impact of this production on the environment. The draft
legislation discussed at this hearing will address some of the
challenges to increase recycling and re-use through R&D and
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Fact Sheet: management of Electronic Waste in the U.S.,
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-
08.pdf
While e-waste recycling is increasing in the U.S.,
the industry faces a number of challenges. These challenges
include convincing consumers to recycle, the logistics of
collecting e-waste, efficiently disassembling products, safely
removing hazardous substances, efficiently processing
materials, and recovering value from many of the e-waste
constituent materials. For instance, the more commingled a
stream of plastics becomes as casings and components from
products are mixed together in processing, the less value it
has for re-use. Improving the technologies that sort these
plastics, or developing new processes and materials that can
use non-homogeneous plastics will make e-waste recycling less
costly and will reduce waste material. From research on
influencing consumer behavior to automated methods of sending
information to recyclers about the products moving through
their plants, R&D could help make recycling more efficient and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cheaper.
The design of electronic products could also aid in
making recycling more cost efficient. Many products are
difficult to disassemble and the location of hazardous
materials varies (i.e., mercury lamps in some flat panel
displays). Product design for recycling would look at the needs
of end-of-life management. Greater use of materials recycled
from old electronics is another up-front design choice that
would help make recycling more profitable. Researchers could
examine the feasibility of different design schemes and
recycled materials usage to help electronic product development
become more of a closed loop process.
Scores of different chemicals and materials comprise
computers, televisions, cell phones and other electronics. Some
of the substances used in electronics (e.g., lead and
hexavalent chromium) have raised enough concern that the
European Union adopted a measure to ban their use in
electronics products sold in Europe.\2\ Manufacturers have been
able to comply with these requirements for most consumer
electronics, but the process to ban substances sensitive to the
environment and human health is on-going. For example, the risk
to human health posed by certain types of brominated flame
retardants used in electronics and other products has created a
controversy over their continued use. Comprehensive data on the
properties of substitutes for harmful materials would enable
electronics designers to change their products more quickly in
response to concerns raised by different materials. The
availability of this type of comprehensive data, provided by
the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, enabled
manufacturers to quickly meet the challenge of eliminating
ozone-layer depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from their
products in the 1980's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (ROHS) Directive,
adopted buy the European Union in 2003.
Increasing the amount of electronics headed to
responsible recyclers is essential to reducing the impacts of
e-waste. Also essential though is research to increase and
encourage the re-use of electronic products. Estimates of the
total amount of energy required over a computer's life cycle
show that roughly 80 percent goes into the computer's
production phase, and only 20 percent into the use phase.\3\
Extending the amount of time a product is in use could not only
reduce the volume of e-waste, but also lessen the impact of the
production of these complex and sophisticated products on the
environment. Often consumers buy new cell phones, laptops, or
other devices because they want the functionality or `look' of
a new model, not because their current device is broken.
Consumers are often wary of purchasing used electronics because
they are unsure of a used product's value or they are afraid it
will not meet their needs. Developing re-use markets that aid
consumers in evaluating used devices could help keep these
devices in the hands of consumers for a longer period of time.
Prolonging a device's use could also be accomplished by
developing ways for consumers to easily upgrade their current
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ E. Williams (2002), ``The 1.7 Kg Microchip.''
Improving the training of students equips the future
workforce to design products with a minimal environmental
impact. Continuing education of the existing workforce in the
electronics and recycling industries informs these individuals
of best-practices in their fields. Similarly, collaboration
between academic researchers and those in industry can help
transfer solutions to the problems identified above as fast as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
possible.
Background
Regulations
No federal law or national framework exists to handle the growing
volume of e-waste generated by U.S. consumers. At least since 2000,
with the convening of the National Electronics Stewardship Initiative,
electronics producers and other stakeholders have been aware of the e-
waste problem. However, because of competing interests over financing
mechanisms, electronics producers, environmental groups, and consumer
representatives have not been able to reach a consensus on how a
national e-waste program should be implemented. In the absence of
federal regulations, some states and localities have instituted
mandatory e-waste recycling. California implemented a program in 2005.
Maine, Washington, and Minnesota implemented e-waste programs in 2007.
Other states, like Oregon, are slated to begin their programs this
year. Each State program is slightly different, creating a challenge
for electronics companies that now must finance the take-back and
recycling of products in all states with programs (except California,
where consumers pay a fee for recycling at the time of purchase). In
addition, many of these companies have extended this take-back service
to consumers in states without specific e-waste programs, though the
service is not always free of charge.
The European Union has been ahead of the U.S. in dealing with e-
waste, passing the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
(WEEE) in 2000, which banned disposal of e-waste in landfills and
required producers to take-back their used products. The actual
implementation of this directive has varied country by country. In
Europe, just as in the U.S., the cost of recycling is also a challenge.
Export
Another significant problem is the export of e-waste from the
developed world to China and other developing nations, where low-paid
workers pull apart the products to extract any valuable materials.
Using crude methods, these workers are exposed to toxic substances,
carrying a heavy burden on human health and the surrounding
environment. While some exported electronics can be legitimately
refurbished and re-used, an overwhelming quantity has no re-use value
and is improperly and unsafely recycled or discarded. According to the
Basel Action Network (BAN), approximately 80 percent of the e-waste
directed to recycling in the U.S. is not recycled, but is instead
exported. Much of this export is not illegal, though the EPA requires
that any exporter of the leaded-glass cathode ray tubes (CRT) from old
television certify that all CRT exports are going to legitimate
processors overseas. This rule is frequently ignored and only minimally
enforced. Both BAN and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries are
working on separate standards that would promote accountability within
the electronics recycling community. These standards will be available
sometime this year.
Federal Activity
When safely handled, e-waste can be a valuable source of
commodities like gold and silver. These items are more enriched in
these precious metals than a comparable weight of naturally occurring
ore.\4\ To encourage recycling, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) offers facts on e-waste and information to consumers about where
they can find recyclers in their area on their website. EPA also has
the ``Plug Into eCycling Program'' which is a partnership between EPA,
manufacturers, and retailers to offer consumers more opportunities to
recycle or donate their old electronics. An example of an initiative
under the program is the campaign ``Recycle your cell phone. It's an
easy call.'' This is a national campaign supported by major
manufacturers, carriers, and retailers to educate consumers about cell
phone recycling. The EPA has also supported a Design for the
Environment Program and Electronics Products Assessment Tool (EPEAT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USGS Fact Sheet 060-01: Obsolete Computers, ``Gold Mine'' or
High-Tech Trash? Resource Recovery from Recycling, http://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs060-01/
EPEAT
EPEAT receives EPA funding, and is a product of the not-for-profit
Green Electronics Council. EPEAT is an assessment tool that compares
the environmental attributes of different brands and models of desktop
and laptop computers. Many large institutional buyers, including
sectors of the Federal Government, will only buy equipment that is
ranked highly by EPEAT. EPEAT convenes manufactures, environmental
representatives, and other stakeholders to establish performance
criteria the products must meet to attain rankings of bronze, silver,
or gold. Products are rated in such categories as to the amount of
environmentally sensitive material they contain, ease of disassembly
for recycling, and energy conservation.
Opportunities for R&D and Education
As identified above, by supporting R&D and education, the proposed
legislation can help reduce the impact of electronics products on the
environment through recycling and re-use.
Discussion Draft--Electronic Waste Research and Development Act
Section-by-Section
Section 1. Short Title
Provides the short title of the legislation, the Electronic Waste
Research and Development Act
Section 2. Findings
Outlines the current background information, concerns, and impacts
of electronic waste on the environment.
Section 3. Definitions
Defines the terms Administrator as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency; a consortium; the term e-waste; an
institution of higher learning; and the Director as the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Section 4. Electronic Waste Engineering Research, Development and
Demonstration Projects
Directs the Administrator to provide grants through a competitive,
merit-based process to be done jointly with institutes of higher
education, non-profit research institutions, government laboratories,
and for-profit entities (i.e., manufacturers, designers, refurbishers,
or recyclers) to find ways to manage electronic waste through
reduction, reuse, and recycling, and make the findings of the research
available to the public. The section requires a report to Congress
within two years after enactment and every two years thereafter of the
grants awarded and a list of the projects and their findings.
Section 5. National Academy of Sciences Report on Electronic Waste
Directs the Administrator to arrange a study by the National
Academy of Sciences to look at the current research programs and the
barriers and opportunities available to reduce electronic waste, reduce
the use of hazardous materials in electronic products, and better
product design for efficient re-use and recycling.
Section 6. Engineering Curriculum Development Grants
Directs the Administrator to provide grants through a competitive,
merit-based process to institutes of higher education and community
colleges to reduce electronic waste through better teaching and
training of students and current workforce by developing a green
engineering curricula and creating internships.
Section 7. ``Green'' Alternative Materials Physical Property Database
Directs the Director to establish a physical property database for
green alternative materials for use in electronic products.
Chair Gordon. This hearing will come to order. Good morning
and welcome to today's hearing on electronic waste. I would
like to extend a special thanks to our witnesses, and today we
will consider a draft legislation to establish programs to
address the challenge of e-waste.
Last April, the Committee held its first hearing on this
topic. We explored the challenges of managing the discarded old
computers, cell phones, TVs, and other electronic products.
These obsolete and inoperable products are being discarded to
become what we commonly refer to as e-waste, or electronic
waste.
As consumers move on to flat-screen displays and the latest
smart phones, older products are likely to be discarded by the
millions. However, as I am sure we will learn today, these old
products still have value. They either are still functional or
they contain valuable materials. So perhaps terming these
sophisticated products as ``waste'' is a bit of a misnomer.
However, only a small percentage of these products make it
to the e-waste recyclers. Most of us put our old electronics
out on the curb or store them in a closet or dresser drawer.
Perhaps the most egregious practice is the export of e-waste to
workers in the developing world. There the valuable commodities
are stripped from the products and processed using primitive
methods. These practices endanger people's health and pollute
the areas where they live.
This bill represents what I hope will be the first step at
the federal level in addressing this growing crisis. As the
Committee learned last April, over a dozen states, local
governments, and many companies have begun to increase e-waste
recycling, and through the international laws and regulations,
companies have removed lead, mercury and other toxic materials
from their electronic products.
But the Committee also learned that these efforts are not
without their challenges and much could be done better if we
knew how to do it. The bill we are discussing today provides
support for academic researchers to start tackling some of the
barriers to making electronics greener.
The recycling of plastics from electronics is a good
example of where this type of research could make a difference.
Current technology to sort plastics coming into the recycling
plants cannot differentiate between all types of plastics.
Plastic streams end up mixed and the reprocessing plastics can
no longer be used in high-value applications. This is a problem
that can be attacked from both sides.
Technology to sort plastics can be improved and research
can be done to figure out how to make mixed recycled plastics
more suitable for use in new products. Creating more demand for
recycled materials will make recycling more profitable and
create less waste.
This bill provides a mechanism for bringing together
academic researchers and the industry partners. It is important
that we are able to implement the new technologies to reduce
waste and to manufacture products with environmentally friendly
materials.
And finally, the bill before us today addresses the need to
educate both future and current workers. We need to get
engineers thinking about green design of products and
recycling. This should become central to the way we approach
their jobs. To that end, the bill creates curriculum
development and professional development opportunities.
With that, I look forward to the testimony we are going to
receive today, and I now recognize our distinguished Ranking
Member, my friend from Texas, Mr. Hall.
[The prepared statement of Chair Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Gordon
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on Electronic Waste. I
would like to extend a special thank you to our witnesses. Today we
will consider draft legislation to establish programs to address the
challenge of e-waste.
Last April, the Committee held its first hearing on this topic. We
explored the challenges of managing the discarded old computers, cell
phones, TVs, and other electronic products. These obsolete and
inoperable products are being discarded to become what we now commonly
refer to as e-waste.
As consumers move on to flat screen displays and the latest smart
phones, older products are likely to be discarded by the millions.
However, as I'm sure we will learn today, these old products still have
value. They either are still functional or they contain valuable
materials. So perhaps terming these sophisticated products ``waste'' is
a bit of a misnomer.
However, only a small percentage of these products make it to e-
waste recyclers. Most of us put our old electronics out on the curb or
store them in a closet or desk drawer. Perhaps the most egregious
practice is the export of e-waste to workers in the developing world.
There, the valuable commodities are stripped from the products and
processed using primitive methods. These practices endanger people's
health and pollute the areas where they live.
This bill represents what I hope will be a first step at the
federal level in addressing the growing crisis. As the Committee
learned last April, over a dozen states, local governments, and many
companies have begun to increase e-waste recycling. And through
international laws and regulations, companies have removed lead,
mercury, and other toxic materials from their electronic products.
But the Committee also learned that these efforts are not without
their challenges, and much could be done better if we knew how to do
it. The bill we are discussing today provides support for academic
researchers to start tackling some of the barriers to making
electronics greener.
The recycling of plastics from electronics is a good example of
where this type of research could make a difference. Current technology
to sort plastics coming into recycling plants cannot differentiate
between all types of plastics. Plastic streams end up mixed and the re-
processed plastics can no longer be used in high-value applications.
This is a problem that can be attacked from both sides.
Technology to sort plastics can be improved and research can be
done to figure out how to make mixed recycled plastics more suitable
for use in new products. Creating more demand for recycled materials
will make recycling more profitable and create less waste.
This bill provides a mechanism for bringing together academic
researchers and the industry partners. It is important that we are able
to implement the new technologies to reduce waste and manufacture
products with environmentally friendly materials.
Finally, the bill before us today also addresses the need to
educate both future and current workers. We need to get engineers
thinking about green design of products and recycling. This should
become central to the way they approach their jobs. To that end, the
bill creates curriculum development and professional development
opportunities.
With that, I look forward to the testimony we are going to receive
today. I now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member and my good
friend from Texas, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very pleased that we
are having this very interesting hearing today. Sixty-three
years ago this week, the United States Army unveiled the
world's first general purpose electronic computer. I remember
it well. This Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer, or
ENIAC, was designed to be capable of solving a full range of
computing problems. ENIAC took up to 680 square feet of space,
weighed 30 tons and consumed 10 kilowatts of power. We have
obviously come a long way since February 14, 1946. As
electronic products have become faster and more reliable, they
have also become more significantly smaller and more
disposable. I just think that today's level of computational
ability is hardly used by most people and yet still highly
sought after in the marketplace. Advances in flat-screen
technologies have led to a new generation of televisions. With
each new technological advance and model replacement, we face
an inevitable problem of electronic waste, or e-waste.
There are a lot of aspects to the e-waste dilemma--the
definition of e-waste, reuse and recycling of electronics,
landfill disposal and hazardous waste, regulatory issues and
export economies. The EPA has already instituted several
programs to deal with these problems. They include EPA's
Product Stewardship, which supports stake holder dialogues,
pilot programs, public education and international cooperation
to foster coordination of electronics use and recycling, EPA's
Design for the Environment Program, which works with
electronics manufacturers to incorporate environmental
considerations into product design, also, EPA's Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Program, which helps federal agencies
purchase environmentally preferable products, the Energy Star
Program, which promotes energy-efficiency products through a
labeling campaign, and EPA's WasteWise Program, which
challenges its partners to set goals for reducing e-waste.
I am grateful to the Chair for circulating the discussion
draft that we have before us today and bringing this topic to
the forefront. I am curious to see how some provisions in the
draft fit with existing programs already at EPA. Clearly, none
of us want to duplicate efforts already underway as we try to
effectively and efficiently deal with this challenge.
I am intrigued with a number of aspects of this bill. I am
hoping to get some clarification and hear our panelists'
thoughts on the ``Green Alternative Materials Physical Property
Database.'' Would this database replicate the structure and
functions of the OSHA/EPA Occupational Chemical Database or
would it resemble the pollution prevention--what is that noise
I hear?
Chair Gordon. Electronic waste.
Mr. Hall. Or would it--I thought you were fixing to get the
hook after me. Or would it resemble the Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange? They write these things and I read them, Mr.
Chair.
I am hoping that the highly qualified panel we have here
this morning will be able to shed some light on some of the
gaps in electronic waste research, and if the discussion draft
appropriately addresses these shortcomings, it would be good to
know. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
this important issue, and I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are having this hearing
today. Sixty-three years ago this week, the United States Army unveiled
the world's first general-purpose electronic computer. The Electronic
Numerical Integrator and Computer, or ENIAC (in-e-ack), was designed to
be capable of solving a full range of computing problems. ENIAC took up
680 square feet of space, weighed 30 tons, and consumed 150 kilowatts
of power. We have obviously come a long way since February 14, 1946. As
electronic products have become faster and more reliable, they have
also become significantly smaller and more disposable.
Blackberry devices, iPods, cell phones and other small electronics
are rapidly replaced by newer models with more gadgets. Computers and
laptops provide a level of computational ability that is hardly used by
most people, yet still highly sought after in the marketplace. Advances
in flat-screen technologies have led to a new generation of
televisions. With each new technological advance and model replacement,
we face an inevitable problem of electronic waste, or e-waste.
There are many aspects of the e-waste dilemma: the definition of e-
waste; reuse and recycling of electronics; landfill disposal and
hazardous waste; regulatory issues and export economies. The EPA has
already instituted several programs to deal with these problems. They
include:
EPA's Product Stewardship which supports stakeholder
dialogues, pilot programs, public education and international
cooperation to foster coordination of electronics reuse and
recycling.
EPA's Design for the Environment Program which works
with electronics manufacturers to incorporate environmental
considerations into product design.
EPA's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program
which helps federal agencies purchase environmentally
preferable products.
The Energy Star Program which promotes energy-
efficiency products through a labeling campaign.
EPA's Waste Wise Program which challenges its
partners to set goals for reducing e-waste.
I am grateful to the Chairman for circulating the discussion draft
we have before us today and bringing this topic to the forefront. I am
curious to see how some provisions in the draft fit with existing
programs already at EPA. Clearly, none of us wants to duplicate efforts
already underway as we try to effectively and efficiently deal with
this challenge.
I am intrigued with a number of aspects of this bill. I am hoping
to get some clarification and hear our panelists' thoughts on a ``Green
Alternative Materials Physical Property Database.'' Would this database
replicate the structure and functions of the OSHA/EPA Occupational
Chemical Database? Or, would it resemble the Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange, a clearinghouse that brings together information
from a consortium of regional pollution prevention information centers
funded by the EPA?
I am hoping that the highly qualified panel we have this morning
will be able to shed some light on some of the gaps in electronic waste
research and if the discussion draft appropriately addresses these
shortcomings. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
this important issue. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and your staff wrote
some very good information there. We want to follow up on that.
Additional Members may submit statements that they have at
this time, including records at this point, and I will submit
one from my friend, the Congressman from the 1st District of
California, Mike Thompson, who has been very active in this
issue. He has a written statement that we will include. [See
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for convening this hearing on a public
policy issue that as of yet, has remained mostly unaddressed.
E-waste is a somewhat new term to our lexicon, but it is evident
that it is one that we will increasingly hear near future. As consumers
buy new cell phones, computers, iPods and other electronic devices with
increasing frequency, we must address the issue of what to do with
these discarded items, some of which contain harmful and ever-lasting
materials.
Some states have already taken steps to regulate and promote the
recycling and re-use of e-waste and I believe it is time for the
Federal Government to evaluate its role in this issue as well. We need
to ensure that an e-waste policy is streamlined so that participation
can extend across industries and products.
While it's true that new technologies are reducing the relative
sizes of electronics and appliances, the problem of e-waste is one to
which relatively little research has been devoted. Manufacturers, when
economically and technologically feasible, should phase out products
that are proving to be particularly durable and potential health
hazards. It's clear that a national framework to address these concerns
is needed.
In the tradition of the Science and Technology Committee, we have
sought to address an issue on the forefront of the technology
discussion. I look forward to hearing testimony today and thank you,
Mr. Chairman for my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
It really is stunning to know that the United States exports 80
percent of its electronic waste to other countries.
It is shameful that much of that waste goes to developing countries
like China, where workers disassemble televisions and computers, often
at great hazard to their health. The waste then goes into landfills in
those countries, putting vulnerable people at risk for toxic ground and
water pollution.
The Committee on Science and Technology has held hearings in
previous years on this issue, and I want to thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for their work to help inform Members.
Now, we have legislation with the intention to begin to address
this problem. Section 4 of the bill will be particularly helpful.
This section provides for a competitive grants program fostering
collaborations between institutes of higher education, non-profit
research institutions, government laboratories, and for-profit entities
(i.e., manufacturers, designers, refurbishers, or recyclers).
Grant money will help fund ways to manage electronic waste through
reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of this program within the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Although the Agency is making some efforts to encourage and educate
consumers about proper disposal of electronic waste, those efforts do
not go nearly far enough.
What we need is for technology manufacturers to make computer
parts, digital music players, televisions, mobile phones, photocopiers
and other equipment that is more environmentally sustainable.
If the Longworth Cafeteria can serve cups and plates that are made
of biodegradable material, then the high-tech industry can make
products that won't end up in landfills or harm workers who are trying
to recycle them.
Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate Section 6 of the bill. This section
will establish a competitive grant program for institutions of higher
education to improve teaching methods regarding ``green engineering.''
Stimulating our education system to prepare experts who can tackle
these problems will be a key component for success.
Although the bill does specify community colleges as target
recipients of the grant funding, I don't see provisions encouraging
minority-serving institutions to apply.
This committee may expect future interest from me in amending the
legislation to encourage applicants from minority-serving institutions.
These colleges and universities receive less research grant money and
have traditionally struggled to compete with the larger universities.
It is my intention to provide them with opportunities to increase
research and graduate-level training.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for holding today's hearing, and I
wish the witnesses a warm welcome.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this important hearing on
investing in research and development technologies in regard to
electronic waste in the United States.
In the U.S. and around the globe, everyday new technologies and
electronics enter the marketplace and retire older models. These
disposed electronics can contain lead, mercury, and other harmful
substances that, unless properly disposed of, can contaminate our
environment and present health dangers to our citizens. Estimates from
the Environmental Protection Agency have shown that the majority of
these retired products are inevitably sent to landfills while only
small amounts are recycled. This is partly due to the general lack of
public awareness of the potential danger that these electronics pose to
the environment, as well as a lack of any coherent strategy from which
to deal with electronic waste. This must change and I hope that this
draft legislation is an important first step in bringing about this
change.
Also, I believe it is our responsibility to fundamentally change
the way we think dealing with electronic waste. We cannot solely focus
on electronic waste from a recycling perspective; sustainable design
which takes into account the entire life cycle of an electronic must be
a part of any new research and development that goes into reducing,
reusing and recycling our electronic waste.
To the witnesses before us today, I want to thank you for taking
the time out of your busy schedules to appear before us and I look
forward to hearing your testimonies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As American consumers attempt to keep up with the latest technology
trends by purchasing the newest cell phones and laptops, the number of
discarded electronic products is rapidly increasing.
When electronic products are properly handled, these products can
transform into a valuable source for reusable equipment.
However, if these products are not disposed of properly, they are
potentially harmful to both human health and the environment.
Currently, there are no federal regulations in place for the
appropriate disposal of electronic waste (e-waste).
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about potential
practices for handing e-waste.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Bilbray
Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall:
Thank you very much for holding this timely and important hearing.
History will show that the steps we take now on the issue of electronic
waste (e-waste) will pay monumental dividends down the road.
Throughout our living rooms and newspapers we are reminded about
the effect that greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and wasteful
habits are having on polluting our environment. Climate change is a
frequent term from playgrounds to nursing homes. Yet, one area we are
fundamentally ignoring is the effect our race to be technologically
superior is having on our world.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between 1980
and 2004, two billion electronic products were sold in the United
States. Of these, EPA estimates that just over half are still in use,
while 42 percent had been disposed of and nine percent were in storage.
These products contain harmful carcinogens and deadly plastics that are
a threat to mankind and the environment when not properly disposed.
Creating an efficient and safe recycling program, along with
research and development to reduce the toxic components of e-waste will
be required to mitigate this problem. I am pleased to see that Sony
Corporation, located in my district, has undertaken one such effort.
On August 20, 2007, Sony Corporation launched their nationwide
program titled ``The Sony Take Back Recycling Program.'' This
innovative recycling approach will allow consumers to recycle all Sony
products for free at 75 Waste Management Recycle America eCycling drop-
off centers across the United States. Stan Glasgow, President and CEO
of Sony Electronics, noted in a statement announcing the program:
``Providing the highest level of service and support doesn't stop once
a purchase is made. We believe it is Sony's responsibility to provide
customers with end-of-life solutions for all the products we
manufacture.'' Glasgow further stated, ``Through the Take Back
Recycling Program, our customers will know that their Sony products
will be recycled in an environmentally responsible manner.''
Private corporations alone should not be required to do all the
heavy lifting. The Federal Government has a role to play in these
efforts as well. It is estimated that the Federal Government purchases
up to $60 billion worth of electronic equipment. This is millions of
computers, televisions, telephones, and copiers. If we are going to ask
private citizens to take part in cleaning up their electronic waste,
the government must do the same.
This month I will be re-introducing legislation that will require
the Federal Government to purchase products that meet EPA's Electronic
Product Environmental Assessment tool (EPEAT) standards. EPEAT is a
system to help purchasers in the public and private sectors evaluate,
compare and select desktop computers, notebooks and monitors based on
their environmental attributes. EPEAT also provides a clear and
consistent set of performance criteria for the design of products, and
provides an opportunity for manufacturers to secure market recognition
for efforts to reduce the environmental impact of its products. By
procuring environmentally safe products the Federal Government will do
its part in protecting the environment.
As this committee goes forward with its work, I hope that we will
have additional opportunities to explore ways to prevent electronic
waste from contaminating our great nation.
Chair Gordon. Now, Ms. Biggert, I understand you are on a
short leash here today, and so we will now introduce the
witnesses and we will begin with you.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you
for the opportunity to introduce one of our witnesses to the
Full Committee today. It is my pleasure to welcome and
recognize Mr. Willie Cade, a native of my hometown, Hinsdale,
Illinois, and owner of PC Rebuilders and Recyclers of Chicago.
The final addition to our panel on electronic waste, his
testimony promises to be both informative and enlightening from
his career in recycling electronics.
Since he founded his business in 2000, Mr. Cade has
refurbished and delivered over 40,000 computers for use in
schools and not-for-profit organizations. He was quickly
recognized for his hard work and talent when he was selected as
the first Microsoft-authorized refurbisher in the United
States. Recognizing the growing prevalence of e-waste, Mr. Cade
went a step further and co-founded the International Computer
Refurbishers Summit, now in its sixth year since inception.
With obvious hands-on experience, Mr. Cade is in a unique
position to educate policy-makers and the industry on the
realities of mitigating the electronic waste stream. He has
some terrific suggestions on research and collaboration efforts
as well as ways to increase consumer awareness and
participation.
So Mr. Cade, we look forward to your testimony and thank
you for joining us today, and I yield back.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Biggert.
To help offset Dr. Ehlers' intellect, we have a top draft
choice here today, and I would like to ask unanimous consent
that Congressman Rush Holt from New Jersey be permitted to
introduce a witness. Mr. Holt--or Dr. Holt, I should say.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. ``Representative'' is fine.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am pleased to introduce, to
commend and to recommend to my colleagues here on the
Committee, Dr. Valerie Thomas to talk to you today. I have
known Dr. Thomas in a number of capacities over decades now,
first as a stellar student in my electrodynamics course at
Swarthmore College and as a participant in my physics and
public policy seminar, later as a superbly active citizen when
she and her family lived in the 12th Congressional District in
New Jersey, also as a fine musician and a wonderful mother. Dr.
Thomas completed her Ph.D. in physics at Cornell after
graduating from Swarthmore, and now serves as the Anderson
interface associate professor at Georgia Tech. Her research,
among other things, looks at efficient use of materials and
innovative ways to manage electronic waste. Over the years she
has conducted really outstanding research in a number of areas
of interest to this committee.
In addition to her excellent science, I think Dr. Thomas
really exemplifies the potential for scientists to be involved
in public policy in an effective way. A few years back, Valerie
was a Congressional Science Fellow of the American Physical
Society and worked as a staff member in my office. So I have
seen her from a variety of perspectives and she really is
superb. Before her service in my office, she served as a
lecturer at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, and as a research scientist there at
Princeton University. She continues her commitment to bridge
science and public policy as a faculty member now at the School
of International and Systems Engineering and the School of
Public Policy.
Mr. Chair, I recommend Valerie Thomas to your consideration
today.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Holt, although you
failed to mention that you are also the godfather to her
children, and so for that reason you are going to be recused
today.
Our next witness is Dr. Paul Anastas. He is the Teresa and
John Heinz III Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the
Environment and the Director of the Center of Green Chemistry
and Green Engineering, the School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies at Yale University, and Mr. Phillip Bond is the
President of TechAmerica. I would like to yield to our friend,
Congressman Wu, for an introduction.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and it is my
pleasure to introduce a fellow Oregonian at today's hearing.
Mr. Omelchuck is the Executive Director of the Green
Electronics Council located in Portland, Oregon. The Green
Electronics Counsel oversees the Electronic Product
Environmental Assessment Tool, which helps manufacturers and
consumers market and purchase environmentally friendly
electronic products. So welcome, Mr. Omelchuck, and I also want
to extend a warm Oregon welcome to Mr. Bond, who is a graduate
of, and a trustee of, Linfield College in McMinnville, Oregon.
Chair Gordon. Well, the West Coast is well represented here
today, and as witnesses know, we try to limit our testimony to
five minutes in terms of the spoken testimony. We have a copy
of your written testimony already. So we will now start with
Dr. Thomas.
STATEMENT OF DR. VALERIE THOMAS, ANDERSON INTERFACE ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF NATURAL SYSTEMS, SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS
ENGINEERING, AND SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Thomas. Chair Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today, and also I would like to thank Representative
Holt for his very kind introduction. I am Valerie Thomas and I
am an associate professor at Georgia Tech in the School of
Industrial and Systems Engineering.
It is widely recognized that electronics are not well
designed for recycling. The valuable components are hard to
extract and difficult to reuse. What is less well understood is
that the electronics supply chain has not been designed for
recycling either. The supply chain for making and selling
electronics is a model of efficiency managed with electronic
data interchange, electronic manifests, radio-frequency tags on
pallets and cartons, and UPC codes on every single package. In
stark contrast, the end-of-life supply chain is managed almost
entirely by hand with little recordkeeping or even potential
for monitoring or oversight. That the results have included
unsafe, polluting, and illegal activities at the end-of-life
should not be a surprise.
Electronics are just one example of the myriad products
that consumers and businesses are increasingly expected to
recycle. Major efforts to increase electronics recycling have
brought the rate up to about 18 percent. Major efforts to
encourage battery recycling including the 1996 Mercury
Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act have been
even less successful. If electronics or any other complex or
hazardous products are going to be recycled at high rates,
innovation and creative use of technology will be needed.
Electronics could have a standard label that would allow
recyclers to identify the make and model of the product and
manage its recycling or refurbishment. These labels could be
something like UPC bar codes or they could be radio frequency
ID (RFID) tags. In a small project sponsored by the U.S. EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency), electronics manufacturers,
retailers and recyclers, and in fact Willie Cade at the other
end of the table from me and I are working together on this,
are beginning to work out how to use RFID to make electronics
recycling work better.
Recycling rates for electronics are low because collection
programs are difficult to use and because products are
difficult to recycle. Products need to be designed for
recycling and collection programs need to be very easy, almost
automatic, regardless of how complex the product is. Currently,
consumers are mainly responsible for managing recycling. There
have been efforts to make producers responsible for recycling.
A third way might work better: improve both product design
and collection systems so that products can manage their own
recycling. Rather than having to continue to work so hard to
educate consumers about how to recycle each and every one of
their purchases, products could almost manage themselves. For
example, consumers could recycle electronics just by putting
them in their curbside recycling bin. The bin could, or should,
be able to automatically read the label on the product and
automatically arrange for pickup. The recycler or the
recycler's computer system would automatically arrange for
resale or recycling and the consumer would get a rebate for
that item. Basically the consumer would not have to do much of
anything. The tag on the product would put everything in
motion.
Electronics recycling is important but it occurs in a
larger context of energy use and manufacturing impacts, impacts
of recycling and of reuse. Good recycling research is done in
the context of all of the impacts of electronics and considers
all alternatives.
And I would like to make one last point. Environmental
problems are among the key challenges facing the world.
Students want to solve environmental problems. Courses related
to energy, environment, and sustainability draw students in to
the study of engineering. At Georgia Tech, our environmental
courses are packed. Section 6 of the draft E-waste R&D Act
supports environmental training for engineers. This would not
only help to solve environmental problems, it would also
attract more students to engineering.
Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to
answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Thomas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Valerie Thomas
Disposal or recycling of electronics can have significant human
health and environmental impacts. Electronics can contain lead,
brominated flame retardants, cadmium, mercury, arsenic and a wide range
of other metals and chemical compounds. The recycling rate is, at best,
about 18 percent, and most electronics collected in the U.S. for
recycling have been sent to other countries for processing (US EPA
2008). In a 2008 report, the GAO found that a substantial fraction of
these end up in countries where disposal practices are unsafe to
workers and dangerous to the environment. Used electronics exported
from the United States to some Asian countries are dismantled under
unsafe conditions, using methods like open-air incineration and acid
baths to extract metals such as copper and gold (US GAO, 2008; Williams
et al., 2008).
If it is carried out correctly, electronics recycling can prevent
pollution, create jobs and save resources. Keeping activities such as
sorting and reprocessing of electronics in the urban areas where they
have been used and collected can provide significant economic and
social benefits (Leigh et al., 2007a, 2007b). These benefits could be
significantly enhanced if plans for recycling and refurbishment were
incorporated into the design of the product and its supply chain.
It is widely recognized that electronics have not been designed for
recycling: the valuable components are hard to extract and difficult to
reuse, and the valuable constituents are mixed with a complex set of
low value and potentially hazardous materials.
What is less well recognized is that the electronics supply chain
also has not been designed for recycling. The existing supply chain for
manufacturing, delivery, and retailing of electronics is a model of
efficiency, managed with electronic data interchange, electronic
manifests, radio-frequency tags on pallets and cartons, and UPC codes
on individual product packages. These kinds of supply chain
innovations, developed over the past thirty years, have saved money and
allowed for the efficient production and retailing of tens of thousands
of products. In stark contrast, the end-of-life supply chain is managed
almost entirely by hand, with little record-keeping or even potential
for monitoring or oversight. That the result has included unsafe,
polluting, and illegal disposal activities should not be a surprise.
Electronics are just one example of the myriad products that
consumers and businesses are increasingly expected to recycle. Recent
major efforts to encourage electronics recycling have brought the
recycling rate up to about 18 percent. Major efforts to encourage
recycling of batteries--including passage of the 1996 Mercury-
Containing and Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act--have been even less
successful. The draft E-Waste R&D Act proposes to address low recycling
rates by ``studying factors that influence behavior and educating
consumers about electronic waste.'' This will not be nearly enough. To
achieve high collection rates, recycling programs for consumer products
such as electronics and batteries will need a different approach to
collection.
If electronics--or any other complex or hazardous product--are
going to be recycled as part of a planned and well managed system,
supply chain innovation is needed. Use of information technology to
manage the end-of-life supply chain will be especially important
because there are thousands of different makes and models of
electronics products that enter the waste stream every year.
Electronics--and other complex products that need to be recycled--
could have a standardized label that would allow recyclers to identify
the make and model of the product and manage its recycling or
refurbishment. These labels could be something like a standard UPC bar
code (Saar et al., 2004). Alternatively, a radio-frequency
identification code (RFID) could be installed inside the product and
serve the same function while being easier to read and providing more
information (Thomas, 2008, 2009).
In a small project sponsored by the US EPA and convened by the RFID
standards organization, EPCglobal, recyclers, electronics
manufacturers, and retailers are beginning to think through how
electronics recycling could be improved by use of RFID tags. This is an
ongoing project, but in our preliminary report (Maxwell, 2008), the
group has concluded that potential benefits for manufacturers and
retailers include:
increased efficiency and lower cost for recycling,
opportunities for recycling incentives, rebates,
coupons and trade-ins,
improved warranty management, and
better after-sale services.
Potential benefits for recyclers include:
improved inventory control,
more efficient product sorting and management,
improved audit capabilities,
integration of product data into online markets, and
easier and less costly reporting to regulators and
clients.
Better management of today's recycling programs is only the
beginning of what could be accomplished. The end-of-life management of
electronics and other products could be transformed by a combination of
improved product design, innovative online markets, integration of
information technology into product management, and supply chain
innovations. Already, online markets such as eBay, Craig's List, and
Freecycle have made the reuse and refurbishment of electronics easier
and more common. Already, companies like Recycle Bank use RFID codes on
recycling bins to reward consumers for recycling.
In the future, consumers could start the process of recycling,
reuse or resale simply by putting their unwanted item in their own
``smart'' recycling bin: the bin would automatically read the label on
the product, and automatically arrange for recycling pick-up; the
recycler, receiving information in advance about the items in the bin,
would be able to automatically arrange for sorting and resale or
recycling, and the consumer would receive a rebate for recycling that
specific item, based on its value or hazard. This kind of system places
the capability to enter the collection system within the product
itself. Rather than having to continue to work so hard to educate
consumers about how to recycle each and every one of their purchases,
consumer products could, almost, manage themselves (Saar and Thomas,
2002; Thomas, 2003).
Today, recycling programs for electronics and other consumer
products have low recycling rates both because collection programs are
difficult for consumers to use and because the products are difficult
to recycle. To achieve high recycling rates, products need to be
designed for recycling, and collection programs need to be designed to
be very easy, almost automatic, regardless of the complexity of the
product. Currently, consumers are mainly responsible for managing the
recycling or disposal of their products. In some locations there have
been efforts to make producers responsible for managing the recycling
or disposal of their products. A third approach might work better:
improve both product design and collection systems so that products can
increasing manage their own entry into the collection and recycling
system.
With respect to the specifics of the legislation: The draft E-Waste
R&D Act will be most effective if it takes into account the entire life
cycle of electronics products. Electronics can have environmental
impacts in manufacturing and in use as well as in disposal. Use of
recycled materials or components can reduce the environmental impact of
electronics production. In some cases reusing or refurbishing
electronics will result in more energy use than would purchase of a new
model; in other cases used or refurbished electronic devices can
provide more environmental, economic and social benefit than recycling.
A research program that focuses only on end-of-life has the potential
to overlook major opportunities for reducing the environmental impacts
of electronics, and could be counter-productive. The research program
should consider the full life cycle of electronics.
With respect to engineering education: The Engineering 2020 study
from the National Academy of Engineering has identified environmental
issues as one of the key challenges facing the world and the
engineering profession now and in the coming decades (NRC, 2002).
Equally importantly, students realize that this important, and courses
related to energy, environment, and sustainability can draw students in
to the field of engineering. Section 6 of the draft E-Waste R&D Act
supports the consideration of environmental consequences in
undergraduate and graduate-level engineering curriculum. Many
institutions of higher education have already made substantial progress
in this area. A recent survey shows that teaching and research in
sustainable engineering are part of the activities of most of the top
100 engineering programs in the United States (Murphy et al., 2009). At
my own institution, the Georgia Institute of Technology, almost every
school in the College of Engineering has environmental offerings at
both the undergraduate and graduate level. Yet there is much to be
done. By and large, the environmental aspects of the engineering
curricula are at an introductory level. The next step is to develop the
depth and rigor that engineers will need, and that engineering
departments will require for environmental material to be adopted into
their core curricula. Engineering schools are well-prepared to take the
next steps, and support for this work would be welcomed.
References
Leigh, N.G., Realff, M.J., Ai, N., French, S.P., Ross, C., Bras, B.
Modeling Obsolete Computer Stock Under Regional Data
Constraints, Resources Conservation and Recycling 51(4):847-
869, 2007a.
Leigh, N.G., N. Ai, S. French, B. Bras, M. Realff, J. Barringer.
Exploring Opportunities for Urban Redevelopment and Mitigating
Inequality via Sustainable Electronic Waste Management: An
Atlanta Case Study. The 48th Association of Collegiate Schools
of Planning (ACSP) Annual Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
Oct. 18-21, 2007b.
Maxwell, E. 2008. Project PURE Preliminary Report.
Murphy, C., D. Allen, B. Allenby, J. Crittendon, C. Davidson, C.
Hendrickson, S. Matthews, Sustainability in Engineering
Education and Research at U.S. Universities. Submitted to
Envir. Sci. Technol., 2009.
National Academy of Engineering. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of
Engineering in the New Century. National Academy Press,
Washington DC, 2004.
Saar, S., M. Stutz, and V.M. Thomas. ``Toward Intelligent Recycling: A
Proposal to Link Bar Codes to Recycling Information,''
Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 41(1):15-21, 2004.
Saar, S. and Thomas, V. ``Toward Trash That Thinks: Product Tags for
Environmental Management,'' Journal of Industrial Ecology,
6(2):133-146, 2002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/108819802763471834
Thomas, V.M. ``Radio-Frequency Identification: Environmental
Applications,'' White Paper, Foresight in Governance Project.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2008. http://
wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic-id=1414&fuse
action=topics.item&news-id=484400
Thomas, V.M. ``A Universal Code for Environmental Management of
Products,'' Submitted to Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
2009.
Thomas, V.M., ``Product Self-Management: Evolution in Recycling and
Reuse,'' Environmental Science and Technology 37(23):5297-5302,
2003.
US EPA 2008. Statistics on the Management of Used and End-of-Life
Electronics. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/
ecycling/manage.htm and Fact Sheet: Managed of Electronics
Waste in the United States. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-08.pdf
US GAO 2008. Electronic Waste. EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S.
Exports Through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive
Regulation. August. GAO-08-1044.
Williams, E. et al. Environmental, Social, and Economic Implications of
Global Reuse and Recycling of Personal Computers. Envir. Sci.
Technol. 42(17):6646-6454, 2008.
Biography for Valerie Thomas
Valerie Thomas is the Anderson Interface Associate Professor of
Natural Systems in the H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and
Systems Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, with a
joint appointment in the School of Public Policy. She has a Ph.D. in
physics from Cornell University, and a B.A. from Swarthmore College.
She has previously worked at Carnegie Mellon University and Princeton
University, and in 2004-05 she was a Congressional Science Fellow,
sponsored by the American Physical Society.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Thomas.
Dr. Anastas.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL T. ANASTAS, TERESA AND H. JOHN HEINZ III
PROFESSOR IN THE PRACTICE OF CHEMISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES; DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR GREEN CHEMISTRY AND GREEN ENGINEERING, YALE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Anastas. I would like to thank you, Chair Gordon and
the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to comment on
this draft bill. My name is Paul Anastas. I am the Director of
the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering at Yale
University, and I offer this testimony on behalf of myself and
my Associate Director, Professor Julie Zimmerman. I want to
compliment the Committee on addressing this serious issue of e-
waste and the draft bill has many excellent professions that I
certainly endorse.
The main message that I would like to make to the Committee
today is really threefold. One is that if we are going to look
at the issue of waste--electronic waste--it cannot be waste
alone but design throughout the entire life cycle of
electronics; second, that there are design frameworks that
exist currently to ensure that electronics are able to be green
and sustainable; and third, that through research and
development, we are able to not only ensure that they meet
environmental goals but also economic goals and performance
goals.
So first a few words about waste. When we look at the issue
of how you design any electronic, it is important to know that
looking at waste alone is not going to do anything for the
manufacturers and assemblers and exposing them to hazardous
substances. We know that in a typical cell phone, there are
approximately 60 elements in the periodic table that are used
in cell phones today, and focusing on waste is not going to
address that issue. It is also of note that we only have
reliable information on approximately seven of those elements
in terms of what our supplies are and what our usage is. So
focusing on the design allows us to not only meet our waste
goals but also build in performance, build in capabilities and
build in profitability while addressing these hazardous waste
substances. It allows us to ensure the materials that are used
are benign, non-bioaccumulative, non-endocrine disrupting and
allows us to get higher performance at the same time.
The sustainable design frameworks, there have been
principles of green chemistry and green engineering in the
literature for some time that have been used across industry
sectors. It is often said that the compass is more important
than the speedometer and that we need to know what the ``true
north'' of sustainable design is. Just in the past few years,
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards have shown that
companies across industry sectors from chemicals to plastics to
polymers to pharmaceuticals to agriculture and, yes, to
electronics, have eliminated enough hazardous substances,
according to the EPA, to fill a train car hundreds of miles
long. Now, they didn't do this because of a regulation or `thou
shall do green chemistry and green engineering,' it is because
you can meet environmental and economic goals simultaneously.
So with all of these good news stories, with all of these
historic accomplishments, that is good news, but the better
news is, this represents a fraction of the power and the
potential of these green design frameworks, and for every one
product that has been redesigned in this way, there are
hundreds, perhaps thousands, that have not even been considered
in these new frameworks. So the potential is immense, and one
of the things that is absolutely required is fundamental
research. I could list off the various areas necessary for
dematerialization such as nanotechnology, benign materials,
alternative chemicals that are not persistent, bioaccumulating
and toxic, molecular self-assembly, but that is detailed in my
written testimony.
There are examples of very productive industry-university
cooperative research programs that can be used as models for
this bill including the technology for sustainable environment
at EPA and industry-university partnerships out of the NSF
(National Science Foundation).
I would just like to conclude by saying that I view the
fundamental research areas that I briefly listed as the bricks
that make up the structure of sustainable electronics. The
framework for sustainable design, the green chemistry and green
engineering principles, are the mortar that hold those bricks
together. The structure can only stand, can only be strong, can
only be stable with both of these elements, that is, the
fundamental research within the sustainable design frameworks.
That said, I would like to thank you again and I would be
happy to answer questions at an appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anastas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul T. Anastas and
Julie B. Zimmerman
Chairman Gordon, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to testify
today on the topic of the proposed E-Waste R&D program. My name is Paul
Anastas and I am the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in the
Practice of Chemistry for the Environment and the Director for the
Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering at Yale University.
The bill under discussion today centers on the problem of e-waste.
My testimony focuses on considering solutions to this problem from a
broader context. E-waste, like waste of any kind, is fundamentally an
end-of-pipe problem. To truly address this issue in a meaningful and
permanent sense, a research program should be designed to tackle it at
its source--at the design-level of the products. Though creating the
infrastructure and technologies necessary to manage and reuse waste
materials is an important short-term goal, the enormous growth
projected for the electronics sector is also an opportunity to re-
imagine how these products are designed and attempt to eliminate not
only the notion of waste, but also the environmental impacts of
electronics on humans and the environment throughout their life cycle.
My testimony seeks to make the following key points:
1. E-waste is a serious and growing problem and yet it is only
one aspect of the much larger issue as we seek to move toward
sustainable electronics.
2. Waste is one egregious symptom of flawed design. With
improved design, we can address not only the waste issue but
also the important issues of energy usage, worker/assembler
safety, depletion of scarce, rare, and precious metals, and the
reduction of toxics use and replacement with benign
alternatives.
3. Sustainable design frameworks exist to achieve these goals
including the Principles of Green Chemistry and the Principles
of Green Engineering.
4. Significant research challenges exist and can be addressed
through thoughtful investment by the Federal Government in
academic research in partnership with the private sector.
5. Advances in sustainable design of electronics can lead to
improvements in overall environmental performance, including
waste, while at the same time creating innovations in
functional performance that enhances jobs and competitiveness.
Introduction
Electronic devices are a central feature of our daily lives. We
rely on them for everything from communicating with our loved ones to
monitoring our blood glucose to ensuring that our cars respond
intelligently to changing road conditions.
Not only do electronics provide us with a vast array of personal
benefits, but they also have a potentially significant role to play in
sustainable development. For example, electronics could lead to greater
environmental sustain ability by significantly reducing the need for
transport, leading to the dematerialization of certain products (such
as the virtual provision of multimedia), or providing improved
environmental monitoring capacity. With recent concern over global
climate change, large-scale efficiency gains resulting from information
and communication technology (ICT) use across sectors are seen as a key
tool for transitioning to a lower-carbon world and facilitating low-
carbon development.\1\ On the social development side, ICT can
facilitate general access to knowledge, build community-organizing
capacity, and provide access to local and global markets. All of these
are dramatically under-served needs in the developing world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Smart 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in the information
age. The Climate Group, on behalf of the Global eSustainability
Initiative. 2008. ICT's potential role in mitigating climate impacts
was the subject of the recently-published ``SMART 2020'' report, which
concluded that ICT's potential for increasing the efficiency of other
sectors is so great that it beyond offsets the use-phase emissions of
the ICT sector itself, though the CO2 emissions reductions
needed to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas levels still exceed what
those gains would represent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainable development will require that the services provided by
electronics continue to be made available to an ever-widening pool of
consumers. The importance and value of electronics and their ability to
offset other environmental problems are often used to excuse their own
environmental impact. However, even a small impact subject to the scale
of production that electronic devices will see in the coming decades
would be unacceptably large. It is even more daunting to consider that
electronics have one of the largest impacts per unit mass out of any
product category. Electronic devices are inherently complex--they
contain hundreds of materials, many of which are toxic, and require
extremely precise structure and assembly on a minute scale, making them
very resource-intensive to produce. As electronic devices become
increasingly central to human life, we need to develop ways to
sustainably provide their key services without tacitly accepting the
problems they currently bring with them.
Thus far, industry's understandable initial response to these
concerns has been to embark on a program of incremental improvement--
making each generation of products slightly less toxic, slightly more
energy efficient, slightly ``less bad.'' However, in a time
characterized by explosive growth in the worldwide use of electronics,
a commitment to incremental improvement is not sufficient. Nor will
even a reasonably effective end-of-pipe waste management system for the
e-waste stream sufficiently address the material throughput or toxicity
issues that are already apparent. We cannot solve an exponential
increase in problems with a linear decrease in impact.
Our longer-term research priorities must be targeted toward the
drastic reduction of both the volume and the toxicity of this waste
stream through concerted efforts at better design. We need to clearly
define the challenges we hope to tackle, and then address them in a
more creative and innovative manner than has thus far been applied.
This approach will also require efforts to build our long-term capacity
for innovation, through the building of a sustain ability knowledge
base throughout our nation's engineering programs. The good news is
that sustainable electronics are possible. We have the tools and design
frameworks required for getting on the right path. However, to overcome
a challenge, we must first recognize it as a challenge--and define our
targets appropriately.
The Electronics-Manufacturing Sector: Historic & Current Problems
The electronics-manufacturing sector is characterized by quick
product turnover, complicated and globalized production chains, capital
intensity, a high level of outsourcing, and a global material
footprint. A typical computer contains over 1,000 components, whose raw
materials draw on the majority of the periodic table. It's usual for
these components to be manufactured and assembled in different parts of
the world--for example, semiconductor chips made in Scotland, a disk
drive made in the Philippines, an LCD monitor made in South Korea,
circuit boards fabricated in China and assembled in Taiwan, and the
final product assembled in Mexico.\2\ In 2005, only 25 percent of
production was done ``in house,'' with 75 percent outsourced to
contract manufacturers, primarily in Asia.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Example adapted from Schipper, Irene and de Haan, Esther. ``CSR
Issues in the ICT Hardware Manufacturing Sector'' SOMO ICT Sector
Report. September 2005.
\3\ Schipper, Irene and de Haan, Esther. ``CSR Issues in the ICT
Hardware Manufacturing Sector'' SOMO ICT Sector Report. September 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental concerns for electronic devices, can be broken down
into three major categories:
-- The use of hazardous and toxic substances
-- Resource and energy intensity
-- The loss of materials and their embedded value to the waste
stream
The complexity of electronic products represents an investment of
energy, water, and processing time that goes far beyond the basic value
of their structural materials. For example, the production of a memory
chip requires about 600 times its weight in fossil fuel. This is at
least an order of magnitude higher than any other product category--for
comparison: the production of a car requires 1-2 times, and an aluminum
can requires 4-5 times its weight in fossil fuel.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Environmental Science and Technology, ``The 1.7 Kilogram
Microchip: Energy and Material Use in the Production of Semiconductor
Devices,'' Williams, E.D.; Ayres, R.U.; Heller, M.; (Article); 2002;
36(24):5504-5510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es0256430
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many electronic products, especially older models, contain
substantial quantities of hazardous substances. For example, older
cathode ray tubes (CRTs) contain between four and seven pounds of
lead.\5\ In 2003, the High Density Packaging User Group (HDPUG)
conducted an industry-wide survey of the material composition profiles
of certain IT components. Using methodologies ranging from analytical
testing to surveys and literature reviews, they categorized what they
considered to be the environmentally relevant materials present in
electronic equipment based on toxicity and volume. The chart below
presents a summary of their findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA 67 FR 40509, June 12, 2002. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Managing Waste Cathode Ray Tubes, Fact Sheet August
2001. From the ``Recycling Technology Products'' Paper.
In addition to these substances of concern identified by the HDPUG
group, many others are often highlighted, including: halogenated and
other ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs), plasticizers, refractory
ceramic fibers, asbestos, lithium, and copper (which, along with
arsenic and nickel, can catalyze the increase of dioxins during
incineration).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ WEEE and Hazardous Waste. A report produced for DEFRA. March
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The loss of material to the waste stream is really a problem with
three distinct sub-categories, which build on the problems already
discussed:
-- reducing the volume of waste entering landfills
-- reducing pollution caused by the toxic content of disposed
electronics
-- closing material loops and recovering the economic value of
materials
The disposal and recycling of waste electronics has become an
international and multidimensional issue. A great deal of attention is
often paid to the volume of e-waste entering the waste stream. The
volume is significant--the U.S. EPA estimates that more than 3.2
million tons of electronic waste enters U.S. landfills every year\8\
and that this volume will continue to grow rapidly in the coming
decades, the more significant problem with e-waste relates to its
qualitative characteristics. E-waste is expensive to manage properly
because of its bulk, small components, and toxic constituents. This
distinguishes e-waste from ordinary garbage, while simultaneously
making it particularly important to manage properly. However, from an
economic perspective, only some subsets of e-waste make financial sense
to recover, while the bulkiest ones (plastics) must be dealt with at a
cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Environmental Protection Agency.
www.epa.govjepaoswerjoswjconservejpluginjindex.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The off-shoring and improper recycling of e-waste has resulted in
unsafe working conditions for thousands of workers in the developing
world. In a many cases, ``recycling'' of e-waste involves burning parts
over open pit fires in order to melt solder and separate out valuable
components. A recent study examining heavy metal contamination levels
in Guiyu, China, a village heavily involved in e-waste recycling, found
that levels of lead and copper in road dust were 371 and 155 times
higher, respectively, than in a non-e-waste recycling site 30
kilometers away. The contamination levels in the village were likely to
pose significant health risks, particularly to children, which the
authors correlated with body loading studies done in the same
region.\9\ Exposure to high levels of heavy metals can result in both
acute and chronic health conditions ranging from damage to the nervous
system, and changes to blood composition, lung, kidney, and liver
functioning.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Leung AOW, Duzgoren-Aydin NS, Cheung KC, Wong MH. ``Heavy
Metals Concentrations of Surface Dust from e-Waste Recycling and its
Human Health Implications in Southeast China.'' Environmental Science
and Technology. January 2008, in press.
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapid technological advances in the electronics sector result in
quick product turnover. This rapid turnover is exacerbated by fashion-
and software-driven hardware obsolescence. The average lifespan for a
PC manufactured in 2005 was estimated to be two years.\11\ Though
demand for electronic devices in the industrialized world continues to
grow, the most significant growth is occurring in developing countries.
Today only 10 percent of China's population of 1.3 billion owns a
computer. By 2020 that number is projected to rise to 70 percent. By
that same year, half the world's population will own a mobile phone and
almost a third of the global population will have a PC (currently one
in 50).\12\ This translates to over four billion PCs in active use
worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Safety Council, ``Electronic Product Recovery and
Recycling Baseline Report: Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in
the United States,'' May 1999.
\12\ Smart 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in the information
age. The Climate Group, on behalf of the Global eSustainability
Initiative. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only does this imply a massive increase in the production of
electronic devices, but it will also necessitate greater network
capacity to support their energy needs, more materials to allow for
their manufacture, and the creation of an infrastructure for their end-
of-life management.
The topics touched on here are likely to be covered in more detail
in other testimonies. However, I would like to draw attention to a few
areas, which I believe do not get sufficient attention, and which
should guide the development of research priorities in this field.
The first is what I believe to be an insufficient focus on the
toxicity of some of the material components of electronic devices. Many
industry representatives point to the incremental improvements achieved
in recent generations of electronic products and consider this a
successful stopping point for the elimination of toxic and hazardous
materials. However, the fact remains that electronic devices still
contain many hazardous materials. What we should ultimately be aiming
for is the total elimination of toxic and hazardous materials in these
products. Only when products are truly benign will their mass
production not pose a substantial threat to workers, users, and those
handling the equipment at end-of-life. Truly benign products do not
pose an inherent risk--they can be handled properly or mishandled
without any threat to humans or the environment. This is not an easy or
short-term proposition, but it is the goal that we should at least be
aspiring to achieve. Perhaps, and likely, this cannot be achieved
through the search for direct analogues of existing toxic materials.
Instead, we can focus on shifting towards new technological avenues.
For example, rather than replacing the lead in cathode ray tubes with a
benign alternative, we instead replaced CRTs with an entirely different
technology.
Another issue, which is only infrequently touched upon, is the
question of material scarcity. The operating assumption within the high
tech manufacturing industry is that sufficient material exists to
continue satisfying the enormous and growing demand for electronics.
However, these assumptions are not always grounded in firm data--
because in many cases, the data does not exist. We generally have a
very poor understanding of the material quantities that we consume, or
how consistently we can expect those flows to continue. One example
particularly relevant to the electronics sector is that of tantalum, a
scarce metal that is essential for the manufacture of capacitors and
resistors. At the very least we should attempt to better quantify the
stocks and flows of various resources through the electronics sector to
improve our capacity for impact assessment.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to the potential of
emerging technologies. These nascent technologies including molecular
self-assembly, nanotechnology and nanomaterials, self-healing polymers,
organic batteries and others, offer the promise of not merely meeting
environmental goals but also dramatically increasing performance and
competitiveness. Only though proper support for the basic research and
development of these innovative new fields can the power and potential
of these green chemistry and green engineering solutions be realized.
Frameworks for Sustainable Design
It has become widely accepted that any consideration of product
sustainability should take into account the entire product life cycle--
from raw material acquisition and manufacturing, through use, to
disposal.
Looking at the entire life cycle helps prevent ``problem
shifting.'' For example, energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs
save a great deal of electricity, but represent a life cycle trade-off
because they contain mercury--thus shifting environmental burden from
the use phase to manufacturing and end-of-life. Examining the whole
life cycle also helps standardize the environmental burden against the
unit of service provided--for example, a disposable cup may have a much
lower environmental cost than a metal travel mug, but the metal travel
mug is capable of providing hundreds of uses in comparison with the
disposable's single use. A key step in optimizing any system requires
an objective look at where the largest areas for improvement lie within
the system as a whole.
Several frameworks for sustainable design, all of which take a life
cycle perspective, have become well established over the past decade,
among them the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry and the 12 Principles
of Green Engineering.\13\ Though it is unnecessary to go into the
details of this design framework here, it implies some key approaches
for responding to the problems outlined above through re-design:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Anastas, P.T., and Zimmerman, J.B., ``Design through the
Twelve Principles of Green Engineering,'' Env. Sci. and Tech.,
37(5):95-101, 2003. Anastas, P.T., Warner, J.C., Green Chemistry:
Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Eliminate or severely reduce toxicity (toward zero hazard)
Materials and energy sourcing--By changing
the nature of the materials and energy that are input
into the process of making electronics, we can
dramatically improve all aspects of the life cycle
stages of electronics including that of e-waste.
Reduce the use of hazards wherever possible
(i.e., replacing toxic flame retardants,
plasticizers, mercury, lead, and arsenic--
containing substances, etc.).
Design new materials, plastics, composites
and alloys that increase performance while
reducing toxicity.
Ensure that the new materials are designed
such that included as part of functional
performance are things like non-persistence,
non-bioaccumulation, degradability, non-
mutagenic/non-carcinogenic, and non-endocrine
disrupting.
2. Close the material loop (achieve zero waste)
Design for reuse and end-of-life. The primary
goal for end-of-life design for electronics should be
to retain the embedded complexity of these products
because they are so resource-intensive to produce.
Functional components should be re-used whole as a
first priority, recycled for their raw materials as a
second priority, and appropriately disposed of as a
last resort.
Incorporate take-back schemes
Reduce material diversity
Improve the ease of product disassembly
Incorporate renewable/biodegradable
materials wherever possible and advisable
Think broadly about possible material
synergies outside of the industry.
Can waste products be sold as feedstock to
other industries? Example: IBM is reported to
have recently begun selling its information-
scoured silicon chips as a feedstock for solar
panels.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Associated Press. ``IBM to Recycle Chips for Solar
Panels.'' The International Herald Tribune. 30 October 2007.
Can other industries' wastes be purchased as
feedstock? \15\ Example: University of Delaware
Professor Richard Wool's chicken-feather-based
circuit boards, which take an existing waste-
stream (three billion pounds of chicken
feathers are disposed of annually) and use it
as a feedstock to make a more efficient circuit
board than the conventional version.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ De la Pena, N. ``Sifting the Garbage for a Green Polymer.''
The New York Times. 19 June 2007.
\16\ Frazer, L. ``Chicken Electronics--A Technology Plucked from
Waste.'' Environ. Health Perspect. 112(10):A564-A567, July 2004.
3. Optimize resource use at the design stage (for energy,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
materials, and time)
Determine and design for optimal product
lifetime--Extending useful product life for most
electronics would lead to overall energy and resource
savings. This is also supported by recent life cycle
analysis studies that have shown that the use phase
only comprises about 20 percent of total energy
consumption over the lifetime of an electronic
device.\17\ However we must also balance this with the
concerns of ``locking-in'' resources into technologies
that may become obsolete or that may be perceived to be
obsolete by style-conscious consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Williams, Eric. Energy Intensity of Computer Manufacturing:
Hybrid Assessment Combining Process and Economic Input-Output Methods.
Environmental Science and Technology. 2004; 38(22):6166-6174. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es035152j
Therefore, product lifetimes should be
increased, but provisions should be made for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adaptability and upgradeability.
Modular options could provide trend-
conscious consumers with exchangeable
components for a new product appearance. These
style upgrades could largely go on within
companies out of customer view.
Select production methodologies that are as
efficient as possible
Select materials that deliver functionality
with minimal resource input
Expand the number of services delivered by
any single device
Specific Research Priorities
The high turnover in the electronics sector is often framed as a
problem, but from a sustainable design perspective it can also be seen
as an opportunity. With technology advancing rapidly, each new
generation of products is the chance to try something new and truly
break out of existing technological paradigms. However, there are
certain problems that will need to be dealt with sooner than others.
Innovations in areas ranging from chemistry and materials science
to systems engineering and policy will be required to effectively
address the problem of e-waste.
Short-term
Up-cycling historic wastes--
Research on the transformation or
destruction of current toxics.
Determine the applications for the direct
re-use of electronics, component re-use, or
recycling--with the goal of retaining as much
embedded complexity as possible.
Nanotechnology has the potential to
revolutionize a number of industries through
the creation of materials with novel physical
properties. This area needs to be thoroughly
investigated in order to maximize its potential
benefits in the electronics sector while
designing through newly emerging Green-Nano
programs to reduce the intrinsic of toxicity
and eco-toxicity.
Improve design for disassembly to enhance the
reuse and recyclability of new products--both through
new recycling technologies and new product design.
Research new material joining options such
as fasteners, welds, adhesives
Examine the potential for the use of new
materials developed through bio-based and
molecular self-assembly techniques
Improve the recycling infrastructure
Educate consumers about electronic waste
Facilitate the collection of electronic
products
Extend useful product life
Determine the factors that lead to
technological failure
Conduct basic research on materials and life
cycle impacts
Support data-gathering programs that will
allow for the completion of Life Cycle Analyses
(LCAs) and Material Flow Accounts (MFAs)
The toxic materials contained in older electronic products that
will hit the waste stream in the next 10 years are a potentially
serious environmental problem. Effective ways of managing these legacy
products remain an unresolved challenge. Improving recycling technology
to be able to safely extract valuable materials from this waste stream
will be one of the earliest priorities.
Plastics present another challenge because although they constitute
a large part of the volume of the e-waste stream, however they
represent a low fraction of the value, which does not create economic
incentive for their recovery. In the near-term, one of the solutions to
this problem will be to research alternative uses for the mixed plastic
stream that can be extracted from legacy electronics. A market for
these materials needs to be established if we wish to successfully
divert them from landfills and other disposal options.
To avoid these very problems with future generations of electronic
products, an immediate, concerted research effort should be directed at
designing components and materials that are easily separable and
recoverable. For materials used in very minute quantities, advanced
separation techniques should be explored. This is, a key priority for
putting an immediate dent into the future e-waste stream.
Historically, the ``use phase'' of electric and electronic
equipment has been considered the most important energy-consuming phase
of the product life cycle. Though this holds true for large appliances
such as washing machines and refrigerators, in the case of most
personal electronic devices such as computers, the majority of resource
consumption and energy usage occurs before the product even reaches the
consumer. A now widely cited study found that the life cycle energy
burden of a computer is dominated by the production phase (81 percent)
as opposed to operation (19 percent).\18\ This is one of the major
reasons that extending the usable lifespan of ICT devices has been
identified by many groups as a potentially promising approach to
mitigating their environmental impact.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Williams, Eric. Energy Intensity of Computer Manufacturing:
Hybrid Assessment Combining Process and Economic Input-Output Methods.
Environmental Science and Technology. 2004; 38(22):6166-6174. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es035152j
\19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important problem for evaluating the environmental
sustainability of electronic products is the lack of sufficient
information on life cycle impacts. Because of insufficient data, we
don't even know how much of certain materials (such as precious metals)
we are using, and how quickly we are depleting our existing stock. It
is estimated that the typical mobile phone made today contains
approximately sixty chemical elements from the Periodic Table. Of
these, we may have adequate data on the supplies and usage rates of
eight of them. This is something that needs to be remedied through
basic research.
Mid-term
Begin to phase out toxics
Investigate new materials and improve
existing functionalities
Develop new display technologies
Improve energy storage capability
Basic material research on polymers,
composites, and conducting organic materials.
A central tenet in the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry is that we
should strive to eliminate toxic and hazardous materials to the
greatest extent possible throughout their life cycle. Though the
ultimate goal of product re-design should be the elimination of toxic
and hazardous substances, this process will need to be carefully
managed and not forced through by over-eager legislation. The trade-
offs of eliminating certain toxic substances for alternative materials
appear to be highly uncertain in some areas, and have often led to
heated debates, particularly just prior to the adoption of definitive
regulatory measures. Among several recent examples, one of the most
prominent is the regulatory push to eliminate lead.
Consumer electronics constitute 40 percent of the lead found in
landfills,\20\ largely originating from cathode ray tube (CRT)
monitors, but also present in significant quantities in printed circuit
boards. Lead is well known to have neurotoxic effects and presents a
particular risk for children. The recently adopted RoHS directive in
the European Union, which has been in effect since July 1, 2006, has
severely restricted the use of lead in any new electronic devices,
particularly in solders, which forces manufacturers interested in
continuing sales in the EU market to switch to alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, ``Fourth Annual Computer
Report Card,'' January 9, 2003; http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/
2002report.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tin-lead solders have been used for over half a century, and
shifting to alternatives has raised concern about the performance of
the alternatives.
Therefore, it is important to innovate truly better alternatives to
existing toxic products, and not prematurely stifle the process through
legislative bans in the absence of the necessary research on the green
chemistry alternatives. This fundamental research is essential to
meeting the genuine goals of moving away from toxic materials in ways
that don't cause unintended environmental, health, and economic
consequences.
Long-term
Material basis of computers
Non-depleting
Non-rare, scarce, toxic metals
Non-persistent, non-accumulating, non-toxic
materials
Focus on new dematerialized product
conceptions
Nanoscale materials and components
Molecular self-assembly
Biomimetic devices
Strive for holistic applications of green
design
Dematerialize--use fewer devices with less
overall material to provide the same services
Close material loops--cease to design
products whose components cannot be fully
recovered for some kind of use
The ultimate message is that green chemistry and engineering
principles can only lead to sustainability if they are applied
systematically. Incremental improvements along specific problem
trajectories are essential stepping stones, but the full-fledged,
system-wide adoption of these design foundations calls for
transformative breakthroughs--both in products themselves and in the
logistical systems we have in place for managing them and their waste
streams. This integrated approach to design is the only way to truly
address the e-waste problem.
These key transformative innovations will likely rely heavily on
dematerialization and will probably make use of technologies that are
currently unknown or just emerging, such as nanoscale self-assembly,
self-healing materials, programmed decomposition, biological mining and
recovery (for minute quantities of valuable materials).
The ultimate goal is to create products that can provide increased
benefits to our society and our economy--on energy that is renewable,
made of materials that are benign, and based on renewable and reusable
feedstocks. This vision is the goal of perfection we seek through green
chemistry and green engineering and it is only through holding out
goals of perfection--the ``true north''--that we guarantee continuous
improvement rather than settling for half-solutions and comprises.
The E-Waste R&D program that is ultimately established should be as
visionary and broad looking as possible in its scope, and avoid
treating the problem of e-waste as a single, narrow challenge.
Program Structure
Research and Education--There are many models in the Federal
Government that have been successful in ensuring the same general goals
that are sought by this legislation:
1. Excellence in research
2. Partnership with industry
3. Integrating education
4. Sound science basis for policy inputs
Some of the outstanding models that could be considered in this
research include the Industry--University Cooperative Research Centers
that are funded out of the National Science Foundation; the Technology
for a Sustainable Environment Program that until recently was funded
out of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and part of an
interagency program with NSF had an excellent track record; and the
Integrated Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) grants
provide and excellent model that could be adapted to partnerships with
industry. There are also the excellent examples of Engineering Research
Centers (ERCs) and Science and Technology Research Centers (STCs) that
have very productive industry/academic partnerships for research and
education.
Leveraging research--In addition to the establishment of centers
dedicated to this important area, it would also be worth considering
how to leverage the portfolio of existing research that will greatly
impact future electronics. Those projects in areas such as
nanotechnology, polymers and materials, electrical engineering, product
design, metallurgy, and others currently funded by federal research
programs because of their direct and important relevance to
electronics. By ensuring that the next round of program solicitations
supporting this research contain requirements for the principal
investigator to discuss potential environmental and human health
benefits of their work and the use of this information as criteria in a
funding decision. This could have a tremendous positive impact on
funding for the field.
Policy Issues
The successful implementation of the outcomes of this endeavor will
additionally need to be supported by innovative policy frameworks in
order to function efficiently and to provide incentives for the
adoption of environmentally superior designs.
It should be noted that ``product stewardship'' or Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) concepts as implemented in existing e-
waste legislation have not been effective, and seem unlikely to become
effective, at changing product design. This is because, for both
economic and environmental reasons, almost all product recovery and
recycling systems are collective--they handle all manufacturers'
products collectively. While manufacturers may pay for their share of
the waste collected, or their share of products produced, no system has
yet been developed to provide a financial incentive for individual
manufacturers to make their products easier to recycle. In addition,
the collective nature of both the end-of-life system and the component
supply chain makes it difficult for individual electronics
manufacturers to adopt dramatic innovations for the reduction of
environmental impact.
Another big source of contention regarding electronics recycling
has been the search for an appropriate financing system. State and
local governments would like to see manufacturer-financed recycling
programs because not enough funding is available for government-
financed options.\21\ However, the cost of compliance with even a
single law can be a challenge for industry, and with the recent barrage
of new regulations, industry has voiced that it cannot bear these costs
alone. The National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative
(NEPSI)--a dialogue between stakeholders convened by the EPA in 2001 to
devise a single national solution to electronics take-back and
recycling was brought to an unsuccessful close when participants could
not reach a consensus on the financing system for e-waste recycling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ From recycling doc--Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Federal Register comments in Appendix VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key challenge has been that all of the proposed industry
funding schemes burden different manufacturers unequally, and in every
case the burdened companies have vigorously opposed the specific scheme
that would disadvantage them. In response to the lack of a national
solution, many U.S. states have developed their own systems, creating a
regulatory patchwork. This is in addition to the emerging international
patchwork of regulations creating an uncertain regulatory environment
making it difficult for the industrial sector to continue to innovate
in a clear direction.
These are all overlying issues that need to be addressed to ensure
the ultimate effectiveness of any proposal.
Conclusion
This bill provides a tremendous opportunity to address the
important and growing issue of the impacts of electronics on our
environment, our health, and our economy. It is essential that the
legislation incorporate the following elements.
1. Do not focus merely on waste since the only effective and
economically beneficial way to address the issue is through
redesign of the life cycle of electronics.
2. Funding for research is essential on the green chemistry
and green engineering solutions for the sustainable design of
electronics. Initially this research will focus on removing
some of the most problematic toxic, bio-accumulating,
persistent substances and later can address the key systems
approaches of biomimicry, organic energy storage, and
dematerialization all fundamental to a sustainable ICT
enterprise.
3. Models for government funding for successful industry-
university partnerships exist and those should be considered.
4. Policy research to provide the incentives for the design,
development, purchasing, recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing
of electronics, is an important element.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important
legislation.
Biography for Paul T. Anastas
Degrees
B.S., Chemistry, University of Massachusetts at Boston
M.A., Chemistry, Brandeis University
Ph.D., Chemistry, Brandeis University
Paul T. Anastas is Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in the
Practice of Chemistry for the Environment with appointments in the
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Department of Chemistry,
and Department of Chemical Engineering. In addition, Prof. Anastas
serves as the Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green
Engineering at Yale. From 2004-2006, Paul Anastas served as Director of
the Green Chemistry Institute in Washington, D.C. He was previously the
Assistant Director for the Environment in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy where he worked from 1999-2004. Trained
as a synthetic organic chemist, Dr. Anastas received his Ph.D. from
Brandeis University and worked as an industrial consultant. He is
credited with establishing the field of green chemistry during his time
working for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the Chief of
the Industrial Chemistry Branch and as the Director of the U.S. Green
Chemistry Program. Dr. Anastas has published widely on topics of
science through sustainability, such as the books Benign by Design,
Designing Safer Polymers, Green Engineering, and his seminal work with
co-author John Warner, Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice.
Chair Gordon. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Bond.
STATEMENT OF MR. PHILLIP J. BOND, PRESIDENT, TECHAMERICA
Mr. Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee
and the staff for inviting us here today for an important
hearing. I also want to commend the Committee for a hearing
that it held April 30 of last year on e-scrap and would commend
to you the testimony of HP, which gave, I think, relevant
testimony at that. I am here on behalf of TechAmerica, and you
may not know TechAmerica but you know who we are. It is a
result of a merger of AEA, the American Electronics
Association, ITAA, the Information Technology Association of
America, and two others, which just last night, with Mr. Wu in
our presence, unveiled the new name of TechAmerica, this merger
of four associations which touches almost every State capital
across the United States as well as offices here, Brussels, and
in Beijing, so really a grassroots-to-global representation of
the technology industry.
As Mr. Hall said in his opening comments, the technology
sector has dramatically overhauled our economy. Even ten years
ago if I had been here and mentioned companies like Google or
eBay, that would have drawn a blank from everyone, and yet
today they are ubiquitous brands. He mentioned the ENIAC
computer, which filled a room, and today we wear on our hips
more computing power than that had. Technology has also become
a fundamental enabler, not just in the economy and innovation
but in the energy and environmental challenges facing us today.
The industry is helping to lead the way in producing new and
sustainable contributions. For instance, electric motors that
use variable speed drives happen to be powered by chips from
companies like Texas Instruments and they are estimated to
annually prevent emissions of 68 million tons of greenhouse
gases. Recently a study by the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy concluded that electronics and widespread IT
had been among the principal drivers of increased energy
productivity over the last 15 to 20 years, and now the
transition to energy independence will also include a
reliability upon more of these devices critical to the
functioning of energy systems, electric cars, and a smart grid.
For instance, computer chips are being developed by National
Semiconductor to improve the conversion efficiency for
photovoltaic solar power, smart grid technologies that allow
two-way communications and thus less energy burned in the home
or business. Migration to new computing models--you have heard
of cloud computing--will result in a lower societal energy use
for computing. Our industry has been a part of these, helping
to drive them, and looks forward to contributing innovation and
advances in this area as well. Now, as we have gone about this,
as the Committee recognizes, there has been a byproduct of the
industry's growth in terms of e-scrap or e-waste and we are
actively working in that arena as well. Dr. Thomas has
referenced the work going on to remove substances such as lead
and mercury from designs. HP, Apple, and Dell, among others,
have introduced notebook computers that use LED technology
instead of mercury-containing fluorescent lamps, and such
innovations, which continue nonstop, are notably and
importantly almost always done in conjunction with our higher
education system. The legislation being proposed by Chair
Gordon recognizes that, embraces that, and in our view, goes a
long way toward helping enable some real solutions, first by
authorizing the National Academy of Sciences report, because we
have got to get the science right; secondly, by funding R&D for
green alternatives; and finally, requiring work with
universities to improve the training of undergraduate and
graduate students, and I just want to endorse what Dr. Thomas
said earlier: what a great magnet this particular area can be
for a new generation of students. I believe the key will be the
ability of the private sector to work with the leading
universities. Merely funding the research is not enough. We
need to make sure it provides concrete, implementable solutions
that the private sector can use.
There are specifics in the bill requiring academic
institutions to partner with companies to include participation
by industry in the reviewing body that will evaluate proposals
to ensure that they are practical. Applications must reference
the companies and associations that contribute to a project. We
think that collaboration is critical, and the application must
include important transfer research results, again, making it
relevant to the real world, which we think is so critical.
We stand ready to be of an assist to the Committee and the
Members in any way that we can, believing that more innovation
is going to be part of the solution going forward. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bond follows:]
Prepared Statement of Phillip J. Bond
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good morning. My name is
Phil Bond and I am the President of TechAmerica. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify today in support of legislation that would
authorize federal programs to study and conduct research on ways to
reduce the environmental impacts posed by discarded electronic
products.
Many of you may not know TechAmerica, but you know who we are.
TechAmerica was launched as a result of the mergers of AeA, the
Information Technology Association of America, the Cyber Security
Industry Alliance (CSIA), the Information Technology Association of
America (ITAA), and the Government Electronics & Information
Association (GEIA). TechAmerica is the leading voice for the U.S.
technology industry, which is the driving force behind productivity
growth and jobs creation in the United States and the foundation of the
global innovation economy. Representing approximately 1,500 member
companies of all sizes from the public and commercial sectors of the
economy, it is the industry's largest advocacy organization. It offers
the technology industry's only grassroots-to-global network, with
offices in State capitals around the United States, Washington, D.C.,
Europe (Brussels) and Asia (Beijing).
For the last few decades, the high tech industry has produced
innovative and revolutionary products that have powered the U.S.
economy and dramatically changed the way Americans live, work, and
play. Just think, in 1996 if I had testified before this committee,
names like Google and Oracle would mean very little to you. Today, they
are two of the most well known brands around and their innovations have
changed the way Americans and business do pretty much everything. Over
the last 25 years we have moved from Commodore 64s to Portable hand-
held computers with exponentially more ability; we have gone from
portable phones carried in suitcases to portable phones smaller than
your hand; from giant jukeboxes and walkmans to iPods; from green
screens to hi-definition; from copper phone service to massive high-
speed networks.
More than improved technologies, technology has become a
fundamental enabler, driving productivity and growth across every
economic sector, from farmers using GPS to improve their crop yields to
manufacturers using computer assisted design and manufacturing tools to
improve productivity on the factory floor. Technology provides
innovators with improved tools to help them do whatever they are doing
in ways that were unimaginable only a few years ago.
The industry is now stepping up to lead the way in inventing and
producing new technologies to make the economy more energy efficient
and sustainable. Electric motors that use variable speed drives,
powered by chips produced by companies such as Texas Instruments, are
estimated to annually prevent the emissions of 68n million tons of
greenhouse gases.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Doing Moore Using Less,'' Semiconductor Industry Association,
available at http://www.sia-online.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent study conducted by the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy for AeA found that high tech electronics and the
widespread advancement of information and communications technologies
have been among the principal drivers of increased energy productivity
during the past 15-20 years.\2\ These technological drivers of energy
efficiency span the range from computers and cell phones to numerous
types of sensors, microprocessors and other technologies embedded in
every day products such as cars, lighting systems, motors and
appliances. The report states that the continued development and
expanded application of such technologies will help ensure that
economic development continues to move in a direction that is both
economically dynamic and environmentally sustainable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.aeanet.org/aeacouncils/
AeAEurope-Energy-Efficiency-Report-
17Sep07.pdf. Other recent reports highlight the positive contribution
that information technology can make in improving the overall
efficiency of the economy and combating climate change. See, e.g.,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), ``A Smarter
Shade of Green,'' (2008) (``For every extra Kwh of electricity that has
been demanded by ICT, the U.S. economy increased its overall energy
savings by a factor of about 10. . .''); The Climate Group and the
Global e-Sustainability Initiative, ``Smart 2020: Enabling the Low
Carbon Economy in the Information Age,'' (2008) (ICT strategies could
reduce up to 15 percent of global emissions in 2020 against a
``business as usual'' baseline.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transition to energy independence in the United States will
also depend upon the growth and proliferation of electronic devices,
which are critical to the functioning of renewable energy systems,
electric cars, and the ``smart grid.'' Electronic circuitry is
essential to the efficient functioning of hybrid cars just as
semiconductor advances will be critical to expanding the consumer
utility and acceptance of plug-in electric vehicles by substantially
extending their range and performance. Computer chips are being
developed by National Semiconductor that improve the conversion
efficiency of renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic solar
power, increasing the cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability
of these installations.
Smart grid technologies will allow two-way communication between
the home and our energy utilities that, when combined with networked
home and electronic products and appliances, will lower energy usage by
all Americans. This collaboration between our network providers,
electric companies, hardware manufacturers, network equipment
manufacturers and consumer electronics and appliance companies
represents a who's-who of TechAmerica's membership of 1,500 companies--
too numerous to list them all here. The Smart Grid will incentivize the
production of energy-efficient and intelligent appliances, smart
meters, new sensing and communications capabilities, and electric
powered passenger vehicles--all of which will be produced by, or made
possible by TechAmerica's member companies.
The migration to new computing models, such as cloud computing,
will bring new economies of scale resulting from shared data storage
and processing capabilities. The result will be significant decreases
in societal energy usage while at the same time increasing our overall
computing power. Such innovations in the high tech industry will allow
greater energy productivity throughout the economy without any
sacrifices in quality of life.
Our industry is also uniquely poised to create ``green jobs'' that
will employ Americans and provide very good wages. One ``career of the
future'' that will grow from new models of computing is an energy
management coordinator, who would ensure that innovative, high-tech
products are programmed and operating at levels that provide the most
energy efficient result. TechAmerica's members are driving innovation
in this sector.
Clearly, the technology industry will continue to play a critical
and leading role in enabling energy efficiency and renewable energy.
However, as the Committee recognizes, a by-product of the industry's
growth has been an increase in the number of discarded, obsolete
electronic products that require management. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the electronic waste
stream is growing 2-3 times faster than any other waste stream in the
United States.\3\ Clearly, something must be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.epa.gov/NE/solidwaste/electronic/index.html.
(``While various reports estimate that electronic waste is less than
four percent of the total solid waste stream in the United States
(eCycling FAQs), electronic waste is growing 2-3 times faster than any
other waste stream (i.e., paper, yard waste.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The high-tech industry has been actively working to address this
issue. Our greatest strength is the ability to innovate and create
products. Designing for the environment has become an integral strategy
in most companies' design and engineering efforts. Additionally,
electronic products are fundamentally unique: In every product cycle,
they become smaller, faster, more functional, and more energy-
efficient. That phenomenon alone delivers significant benefits for the
environment.
Furthermore, engineers are working to remove hazardous substances,
such as lead and mercury, from product designs. These materials often
provide unique benefits and functionality, including safety shielding
and energy efficiency. Companies are developing substitute materials
that can achieve the same functionality with fewer environmental
impacts. For example, HP, Apple and Dell, amongst others, have
introduced several notebook computer models that use LED technology
instead of mercury-containing fluorescent lamps. Others are exploring
the use of halogen free flame retardants in electronic products.
Products are becoming more recyclable. New techniques allow for
easy and quick disassembly. Companies are exploring the use of plastic
resins that can be reused in new products. They are also working with
recyclers to help understand how product design impacts the recycling
process. All of these efforts will help facilitate and promote more
cost effective and efficient recycling operations for electronic
products.
It's important to emphasize that our industry is a partner in this
endeavor. One of the hallmarks of America's leadership in the global
economy is collaboration between universities, private laboratories,
government agencies and companies. Together we create innovative and
marketable solutions in areas like defense, health care, the hard
sciences and, of course, technology. Greening our products and solving
the e-waste problem is no different--if all these communities can work
together in committing resources to research and development of e-waste
solutions, we will be able to tackle this problem without harming the
industry's greatest strength--its ability to innovate.
The legislation being proposed by Chairman Gordon and before this
committee today will go a long way towards reaching this goal. First,
by authorizing a National Academy of Sciences report that will assess
the environmental impacts caused by the disposal of electronic
products, the legislation will help fill a critical data gap that
currently exists. It is important to understand the problem before
effective policies can be constructed. Second, by funding the research
and development of green alternatives to hazardous materials in
electronics as well as research into product design to facilitate the
disassembly and recycling of electronic waste, the legislation will
address two of the most important challenges the technology industry is
seeking to overcome: the development of ``greener'' products that are
easier to recycle. Finally, by working with universities to improve the
training of undergraduate and graduate engineering students in
environmental considerations--the legislation will guarantee that
future products will be designed with environmental considerations as
priority design characteristics as opposed to being considered only
when the products are discarded.
The key to this research and development being successful will be
the ability for universities, labs and not-for-profit organizations to
partner with the high tech industry in developing workable, efficient,
and cost-effective solutions. Merely funding the research is not
enough--ensuring that the research provides concrete and implementable
solutions for the private sector will lessen, if not end, the
environmental issues posed by the disposal of electronic products.
The current draft of the bill contains several important provisions
that I believe will enhance public-private collaboration and ensure
that the outcomes envisioned in the bill lead to concrete, beneficial
innovations that improve the environmental profile of high tech
products. We congratulate the Chairman for his foresight in including
these provisions, and we urge that these principles be retained and
strengthened in the bill.
Specifically:
Section 4 calls for the academic institutions to
partner with companies and associations involved in the
production, sale, and recycling of electronic products.
Requiring the research institutions to partner with companies
and associations will improve the likelihood that the research
projects will yield beneficial results.
Similarly, Section 4(b) calls for industry
participation in the reviewing body that will evaluate
proposals and ensure they have merit. Once again, the explicit
call for industry participation in the review of proposals will
improve the prospects for projects that provide practical
information to the companies that produce these products.
Section 4(d)(1) states that the application must
reference the companies and associations contributing to the
project. We believe that requiring evidence of this type of
collaboration and support is an essential element of successful
partnership between universities, labs, not-for-profits and
industry.
Section 4(d)(3) specifies the application must
include information on how the Centers for Electronic Waste
Research will ``transfer research results into practice to
address the electronic waste issue, with emphasis on the
feasibility of incorporating research results into industry
practice.'' Making applicants expressly identify how the
results will be transferred into practical outcomes in another
important element of ensuring successful outcomes.
Section 4(e)(6) requires that the evaluation of
proposals consider the technology transfer plan and the
feasibility of integrating the research into practice.
We believe that these provisions will further the goal of ensuring
that the academic research will be meaningful and transferred into
tangible improvements in the design, production and recycling of
electronic products. This approach will improve the prospects for
promoting research that is applied by companies and ultimately achieves
the environmental benefits that are the goals of this bill.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to working with the Chairman and this committee on passage of
this legislation.
Biography for Phillip J. Bond
Phillip J. Bond is President of TechAmerica, the broadest U.S.
technology association with 1,500 member companies and 17 regional
councils across the country. TechAmerica is the new association
resulting from the January 1, 2009 merger of the Information Technology
Association of America (ITAA) and the American Electronics Association
(AeA).
Previously, Bond was appointed President and Chief Executive
Officer of ITAA in June, 2006. In that capacity, he engineered two
earlier mergers that brought the Government Electronics and IT
Association (GEIA) and the Cyber Security Industry Alliance (CSIA)
under the ITAA banner. Bond also is President of the World Information
Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA), a network of industry
associations representing more than 60 high-tech trade groups around
the world.
Today, TechAmerica represents some 1,500 leading software,
hardware, services, Internet, telecommunications, electronic commerce
and systems integration companies. The association offers business
services, networking, standards development, research and grassroots-
to-global policy coordination for its members.
Bond is a highly accomplished executive in both government and
industry. Prior to joining ITAA, he served as Senior Vice President of
Government Relations for Monster Worldwide, the world's largest online
career site, and General Manager of Monster Government Solutions. From
2001 to 2005, Bond was Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Commerce for Technology and, from 2002-2003, served concurrently as
Chief of Staff to Commerce Secretary Donald Evans. In his dual role,
Bond worked closely with Secretary Evens to increase market access for
U.S. goods and services and further advance America's technological
leadership at home and around the world. He oversaw the operations of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Office of
Technology Policy, and the National Technical Information Service. He
has been recognized in Scientific American magazine in its list of the
Top 50 Tech Leaders of 2003.
Earlier in his career, Bond served as Director of Federal Public
Policy for the Hewlett-Packard Company, and previously as Senior Vice
President for Government Affairs and Treasurer of the Information
Technology Industry Council. From 1993 to 1998, Bond served as Chief of
Staff to Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn (R-WA). He was Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs from 1992 to
1999. Earlier, Bond was Chief of Staff and Rules Committee Associate
for Congressman Bob McEwen (R-OH) from 1990 to 1992. From 1987 to 1990,
he served as Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs.
Bond is a trustee and graduate of Linfield College in Oregon. He
also serves on the board of the National Center for Women in
Information Technology. He and his wife, Diane, have two daughters and
reside in Fairfax Station, Virginia.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Bond. I think we look forward
to being a partner with you. You will be a great resource.
And now Mr. Jeff Omelchuck.
STATEMENT OF MR. JEFF OMELCHUCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREEN
ELECTRONICS COUNCIL, ELECTRONIC PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT TOOL (EPEAT)
Mr. Omelchuck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding
this hearing on this important issue and for providing all of
us the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jeff Omelchuck.
I am the Executive Director of the Green Electronics Council, a
nonprofit based in Portland, Oregon that works cooperatively
with all stakeholders interested in electronics and the
environment from manufacturers to NGOs to the purchasers and
users of electronics and recyclers to try to realize the
benefits of electronic products without saddling society with
some of the negative aspects of it today. I am also the
Executive Director of EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool) Inc., which Congressman Wu introduced, and
thank you very much.
I wanted to highlight a few of the key issues that I think
are emerging that make electronics rather unique products, that
one, I think it is just striking that every advance we have
made in society, nearly every advance in the last 50 years has
been enabled largely by information technologies. At the same
time, they are the most impactful product on the planet to
manufacture. This is a striking kind of situation for a
technology. Recent research indicates that probably about 80
percent of the environmental impact associated with desktop
computers happens during the material extraction and
manufacturing phase. Most of this impact occurs because of the
chemicals and energy and water used in the manufacture of the
product. The point is that these indirect materials can't be
recovered during manufacturing because they are not present in
the product. I think this argues for strong consideration of a
program that emphasizes reuse of these products and trying to
do what we can to extend the life of these products as long as
possible to amortize this impact of manufacture of a longer use
life. So if e-waste only deals with the waste end as it
typically has in Europe, I think we are missing a huge
opportunity to reduce the environmental impact of these
products.
Electronics are different from many other commodities that
we think about recycling. If you think of beverage containers
or other things, the goal of recycling those is to recover the
material out of those so we can reuse that material and recover
the aluminum or recover the plastic for reuse. The issue with
electronics is rather different. I think our highest priority
needs to be to prevent inappropriate recycling, as Dr. Anastas
described and Chair Gordon described. A lot of this material is
shipped overseas where they make crude attempts to recover the
expensive and valuable parts out of it and their attempts have
grave environmental issues associated with them. We need to
prevent the export of our own waste where it causes these
problems. Secondly, as a secondary priority, I think we need to
keep toxics out of the environment. We need to prevent the
pollution caused by e-waste itself. This is an issue that we
don't face with, say, aluminum cans or plastic bottles. Third,
we need to recover the high value and rare materials out of
electronics. They are available often in quite trace quantities
but they are also very impactful materials too to create and
extract and make available in our society, so recovering those
is probably the highest priority. And finally, recovering the
plastics and ferrous metals, which is what we do mostly today
in the small percentage that we do recycle. It is probably the
lowest priority.
I would like to further make the point that, as Dr. Anastas
did, that e-waste systems are incapable of affecting product
design and the product design greatly impacts the results of
how well they are recycled but just collecting the waste and
recycling at the end of the stream does nothing to affect
product design, and there are recycling systems, electronics
recycling systems, all over the world at this point. None of
them affect product design. There is no incentive placed on the
manufacturer to change product design to make them more
recyclable. There is, however, an effective way to affect
product design, and that is a green purchasing system, a
specification placed by the purchasers of the product on green
design, and there is a very powerful program in place today
called EPEAT. It is a program that my organization manages. It
is the program used by the U.S. Federal Government when they
specify green electronics. Such programs do have the capacity
and capability of affecting product design and doing so
effectively today. Today EPEAT has created over $60 billion
market incentive for manufacturers to design and manufacture
greener products.
I would like to make one input on the bill. The reason that
we do not today have an electronics recycling program in the
United States is because of difficulties with the funding
system. Each funding system that has been proposed affects
different kinds of manufacturers differently, disadvantages
some more disproportionately than others. Therefore, each
possible funding solution is opposed by somebody, and that has
prevented us moving forward collectively to have a system that
works. Therefore, I suggest that in addition to the research
proposed in the bill that we also include policy and economic
research in trying to figure out the funding system that will
enable progress.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Omelchuck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Omelchuck
Recycling the huge amount of legacy electronics that have already
been produced is a critical environmental issue. A good e-waste system
would keep the environmentally sensitive materials in electronics out
of our landfills, groundwater, and air and would allow us to recover
and re-use many of the valuable materials. In addition, it must prevent
the export of American e-waste to countries and places that cannot, or
do not, recycle it properly. There are many ways that the development
of an effective national electronics system would benefit from further
research. We strongly support the proposed ``Electronic Waste Research
and Development Act'' and the creation of a national e-waste recycling
system. Below we present some research and thinking about e-waste
recycling and suggest some areas needing further research.
Research suggests that over 80 percent of the environmental impacts
associated with Information and Communications Technology (ICT) occur
during the manufacture of the product.\1\ Much of this impact stems
from the electricity, fossil fuels, chemicals, and water used to make
semiconductors, printed circuit boards, and other components. While
recycling recovers some of the material contained in the product, none
of these indirect materials or energy can be recovered. This suggests
that one of the best ways to reduce the environmental impacts
associated with electronics is to amortize the high impact of
manufacturing them over a longer use life. Thus, it is critical that an
e-waste ``recycling system'' encourage product and component re-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ E. Williams (2002), ``The 1.7 Kg Microchip.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While product design clearly affects recyclability, the reverse is
not true. Electronic products are not designed for optimal End-of-Life
(EOL) outcomes. Further, if there were comprehensive Design for EOL
(DfEOL) guidelines it is not clear why manufacturers would follow them.
While most recycling systems charge manufacturers a fee based on their
market share or ``collection share,'' \2\ it doesn't make environmental
or economic sense to actually return each manufacturer's products to
them or process them separately. Because of this, individual
manufacturers have no incentive to make their products more easily or
efficiently recycled. In fact, many of the innovations that any one
manufacturer might make to improve recyclability (use of unique
materials, novel connectors, disassembly methods, etc.) have the
potential to actually reduce the overall recyclability of the common
waste stream. Innovation by individual manufacturers has not and will
not improve product recyclability. Collective collection and recycling
argues for common product DfEOL standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Including the EU WEEE system, China's system, and the systems
of the U.S. States that have implemented e-waste recycling programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcing a common DfEOL standard via regulation would be very
difficult, and once enacted it would be very slow to evolve in this
fast-moving industry. However, electronics manufacturers are very good
at listening to and meeting the needs of their customers. An eco-label
or ``green purchasing system'' that carries substantial market demand
is the most practical and responsive way to implement a common DfEOL
standard and is a necessary component of an e-waste solution.
With EPA and the Federal Government's help, in two and a half years
EPEAT has become the most influential green purchasing system for
electronics on the planet. EPEAT registration is now required on over
$60 billion of IT purchase contracts from the U.S. Federal Government,
the Canadian Federal Government, many states and provinces, and a
growing list of international businesses and public agencies. EPEAT's
DfEOL and other criteria are clearly affecting the design practices of
IT manufacturers globally.
EPEAT was developed by and for institutional purchasers--
organizations that buy computers on purchase contracts. Retail
consumers represent approximately 40 percent of the market for laptops,
desktops, and monitors yet EPEAT is not known or used by consumers. In
addition, stakeholders have begun the process of developing EPEAT
standards for other electronic product types with substantial consumer
markets. If EPEAT is to be an effective tool for improving the
recycling outcomes for consumer electronics then consumers must place a
purchasing preference on EPEAT registered products, as the U.S.
Government does. Building consumer awareness of the importance of e-
waste recycling and of buying products that are optimized for efficient
recycling will require market research and likely public investment.
Recent research conducted by GEC et al. and sponsored by EPA\3\
shows that e-waste recycling technologies and practices vary
considerably within the U.S., ranging from manual deep disassembly and
materials sorting to whole product shredding. In addition, it appears
that different types of electronic products are more efficiently
recycled in different manners. Therefore, the DfEOL criteria may be
different for different types of products that should be recycled in
different ways. Further research is needed to refine DfEOL criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rifer et al. (2009), ``Closing the Loop: Electronics Design to
Enhance Re-use/Recycling Value.'' (See Appendix 2: Additional Material
for the Record.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The research report also describes a pilot project sponsored by GEC
and the National Center for Electronics Recycling to create a ``Close
the Loop Registry'' of recyclability information for many electronic
products. Further research and support for piloting and implementing
this DfEOL registry are needed.
Finally, research suggests that a significant amount of e-waste is
caused by software driven hardware obsolescence. It is clear that the
commercial models of both the software and hardware industries have no
clear incentive to prevent or reduce this. Further research is needed
to determine if there are ways to change software and hardware product
design practices, or the commercial incentives of these industries, to
reduce material and energy churn without damaging the innovation and
competitiveness of the industry.
Comments on proposed ``Electronic Waste Research and Development Act''
The primary reason that the U.S. does not have a comprehensive e-
waste recycling program is disagreement between manufacturers as to how
such a system would be funded. Each manufacturer has opposed a system
whose funding would put them at a competitive disadvantage with respect
to their competitors. As a result, each possible system is opposed by
one or more powerful manufacturers and the result is no system. The
proposed act would do little to solve this fundamental problem. We
recommend that the research supported under the act include research
into possible funding models and how to reduce or eliminate competitive
inequities that prevent forward motion.
Biography for Jeff Omelchuck
I received a BS in Industrial Engineering from Montana State in
1982.
Moved to the Silicon Valley where I worked in high-tech
engineering.
Received an MS from Stanford in 1987 on an Honors Fellowship from
my employer.
Moved to Oregon and worked for a computer company from 1990-1992.
Started a consulting practice in Oregon that evolved to focus on
sustainability management systems in 1992.
Founded the GEC in 2005.
GEC was selected to manage EPEAT in late 2005.
We launched EPEAT in 2006.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Omelchuck. Just collaterally,
you had mentioned water in the process, and another major
legislative effort by this committee is going to be on water,
and one of the elements of that will be research to how to use
in closed systems, and how to use water and reuse water more
efficiently.
Now Mr. Cade, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIE CADE, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, PC REBUILDERS AND RECYCLERS, HOME OF THE COMPUTERS FOR
SCHOOLS PROGRAM
Mr. Cade. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an honor to be here
today and I particularly want to echo my fellows at the table
here in terms of their testimony, so I am going to skip kind of
quickly on to the recommendations that I would have in the
legislation.
First of all, in the definitions, I would suggest that
there be very specific references to reuse, refurbishment,
repair, remanufacturing, material recovery, and proper
disposal. I think the current draft lacks some definition on
that, and my experience has been when it is enacted into law,
if those definitions are not clear, it becomes very
problematic.
I would also suggest the definition of ``hazardous'' and
``potentially hazardous.'' I think that is one of the issues
that really is hard for us to deal with in this particular
situation, and I do want to let people know that using their
computers in the home is not hazardous. There just is potential
for hazard later on.
In terms of section 4, the research and development, in
terms of part 1--one of the things that we have been doing--I
have run the collection facility for the city of Chicago on
Goose Island and over the last year we cataloged over 7,000
items that people have brought to us as computer waste, and of
those, 3,000 different model numbers exist with 425 different
brands that those are made up of. The average age of that
equipment is 10.2 years old so that is a very important number
there to understand, and while we may want to design better
products that are going to be coming down the road later, we
have a large backload, large volume of equipment that we are
going to need to deal with for many years to come. Our data
suggests that the equipment is actually being stored longer and
longer now that people are putting more and more of their
valued data on that equipment. The other thing that I think is
very important in this particular process is that we understand
that this is not equipment that is not functional. It is just a
perception that it doesn't work as well as the new equipment,
and one of the things that we are very excited about is using
these older Pentium 3, Pentium 4 systems to help homes monitor
their energy use in the new smart grid environment. We are
currently working with the Centers for Neighborhood Technology
on creating a product that will measure your home energy use--
and therefore be able to reduce your consumption.
One of the things that we anticipate is, by the mere
savings on energy usage in a home, we will be able to finance
the purchase of a PC for low-income families. Today there is
still 25 percent of the households that do not have a computer
in them. If we can provide them with a computer that can help
them reduce their energy consumption, we believe we can finance
not only the computer, a working model that has all the bells
and whistles, but also the Internet connection and still save
them dollars and energy on their home plans.
And I believe that this remaking of the products, the
remanufacturing, the reuse, the refurbishment of these products
will actually give us the ability to bring home the electronics
industry. If you are competing merely on cost per hour for
production, we probably can't compete with foreign competitors
but if we are competing on a whole system of collection and use
and knowledge and understanding of these systems and to bring
product out, I believe we will be able to do a very, very good
job with it. We are currently working on a pilot project in the
city of Chicago where 100,000 homes will have smart meters,
will be able to connect to these smart meters and be able to
bring back information to the home user. Reports show--studies
show--right now that the home user who has that kind of
information is saving anywhere from 15 to 30 percent of their
home energy costs. Average home energy costs right now are
about $1,200 a year. That is a significant savings.
Thank you very much, and I will be happy to entertain any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cade follows:]
Prepared Statement of Willie Cade
Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, thank you for the opportunity to
be before you today and testify on the issue of Electronic Waste:
Investing in Research and Innovation to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle. I
would especially like to thank Congresswoman Biggert for her support of
my work. I have submitted my full written testimony to the Committee
and I will only summarize my statement at this time.
Fifteen years ago I began working with discarded computer equipment
to help bridge the digital divide for at risk students in high school.
I was attending a board meeting of LINK Unlimited a not-for-profit
organization that supplies mentors and financial aid for capable
students to attend the best schools in the City of Chicago. During the
meeting I was arguing that each student needed a personal computer in
their home so they could prepare adequately for college. The then Chief
Financial Officer of Waste Management offered four conference rooms
full of equipment that they were storing because they didn't know how
to throw it away. So began my adventure of computer refurbishment and
electronics recycling. When I walked into the conference rooms on that
cold February morning I saw opportunity not a pile of waste. For me
this is e-opportunity not e-waste. With the Chairman's indulgence I
will continue to use my term e-opportunity not e-waste.
We quickly discovered that the single most complicated part of
computer refurbishment was installing a fresh, reliable, and legal
operating system across a broad spectrum of hardware. We worked with
Microsoft for seven years and in 2000 the Microsoft Authorized
Refurbisher (MAR) Program was launched. My company was one of the first
five organizations that Microsoft authorized to reinstall their Windows
operating system on refurbished computers in the U.S. Since then we
have refurbished over 40,000 computers for schools, not-for-profits,
and in homes of children at risk. We provide a complete system (CPU,
monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers) with an instruction booklet,
free U.S. bases telephone support and a three year hardware warranty
for a starting price of $150.00. Our fist year failure rates are less
than new equipments first year failure rates.
We reluctantly became involved with equipment that we could not use
for our refurbishing because of the demands of our donors. If we wanted
the good stuff we had to take the whole lot. While this has
significantly complicated our business model it has also provided us
with enormous opportunities. Early in 2000 the extra equipment was
relatively easy to deal with but as more and more equipment was brought
out of closets and store rooms the task became more challenging. Today
a significant majority of equipment is not refurbishable for general
personal computer usage. Recently a stakeholder group supported by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published ``Responsible
Recycling (R2) Best Management Practices for the Electronics
Industry.'' This document is attached at the end of this testimony.
These practices specify the philosophy and practice that high quality
organizations should employ. I whole heartily support the
implementation of these practices in certification programs like. There
is some controversy that these practices do not hold organizations like
mine to a high enough standard. As a practitioner of the art of e-
opportunity I believe that significant research and development must be
carried out before we can practically implement higher standards. This
legislation is well suited to accomplish those goals.
Comments on the draft legislation:
Section 3: Definitions.
1) I would suggest that the legislation include a specific definition
of ``recycling'' that includes reuse, refurbishment, repair,
remanufacturing, material recovery, and proper disposal. I have
attached to my testimony a brief concept document on ``Strategies for
Improving the Sustainability of E-Waste Management Systems'' that may
be useful in defining the above terms.
2) I would suggest that the legislation include a definition of
``hazardous'' and ``potentially hazardous'' materials. I believe that
it is important to assure consumers they are not overly exposed to
environmental hazards while using a computer. It is however important
to educate people that improper handling may be harmful to themselves
and the environment.
Section 4: Electronic Waste Engineering Research, Development, and
Demonstration Projects.
Part 1) I believe that Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) should be
the major way that efficiency of recycling (in all of its forms) be
studied. For over a year my organization has cataloged over 7,000 items
at the Computer Collections facility that we operate for the City of
Chicago on Goose Island. We keep detailed data on each item over one
pound that is delivered to this permanent collection facility. There
are roughly 3,000 different model numbers from over 425 different
Brands. The average age of the equipment is 10.2 years old. People
travel on average six miles to drop off their equipment. TVs average
15.5 years old while Apple Computers are two to three years older than
other brands of computers. CPUs average 25 pounds and monitors average
35 pounds while TVs average 45 pounds. Automated triage with the
support of RFID must be developed that fully utilize both the carbon
investment of the products and increase the recovered value. (Note:
over 80 percent of the energy used in the life cycle of a computer is
used in the making of the product.)
Part 2) Casual reading of the Discussion Draft in this section might
lead one to believe that research should only be done on ``e-
opportunity'' only after it has been destroyed and separated into
different commodities. While I concur that much work still needs to be
done on that issue there is a broader area of research that should be
identified. A significant majority of the equipment being turned in by
consumers and organizations is still functioning. Newer models may have
come on to the markets that perform the desired tasks faster and
better: triggering the false impression that the older equipment is
waste. For instance most of the working CPUs that we receive could be
cost effectively remanufactured into home energy monitoring and control
devices, thus allowing consumers simple and efficient ways to take
advantage of Smart Grid technology in their homes. I believe that the
refurbishing and remanufacturing of e-opportunity will bring the
electronics manufacturing industry back home.
Part 3) The university setting is well suited for this kind of basic
materials research. I applaud the Committee for it's inclusion in this
legislation.
Part 4) I believe that it will be at least 15 years before all of the
potentially hazardous materials will be removed from our electronic
devices. In the mean time we need to develop safe methods of removing
those materials both in developed and underdeveloped countries. Many
well intentioned environmentalists have suggested that unwanted
electronic devices that come from the US and go to developing countries
should be shipped back to us for end-of-life processing. I would rather
see safe portable processes that are applicable in many different
environments.
Part 5) Product design is one of the most important issues in
transforming e-opportunity into value. To that end I currently teach a
graduate/undergraduate ``e-opportunity'' course at the University of
Illinois at Urbana/Champaign. The course is housed in its industrial
design department, the oldest such program in the country. This
semester we are conducting a contest, open to all students on campus,
for the most creative and the most ``geeky'' use of e-opportunity. I
would like to invite each and every Member of this committee to be a
judge for this contest on April 21st of this year.
Part 6) We need scientifically sound tools that aid us in assessing
the environmental impact of e-opportunity and manufacturing in order to
make informed decisions about the quality of our processing and balance
it against the needs to be cost effective. I am not suggesting that we
diminish our goal of 100 percent environmental safety but rather that
we use these new tools to expedite reaching those goals. Again I
applaud the Committee on the inclusion of this section of the
legislation.
Part 7) We have not come close to exhausting our electronic devices.
All too often our perception of obsolescence prematurely retires our
electronics. Product design that can incorporate repairs, upgrades,
etc., need to be encouraged and real business cases need to be found to
support them.
Part 8) I believe that the single biggest issue confronting consumers
and business in recycling their equipment is the concern about data
security. People are not educated nor can they readily identify a
device that has its data erased. Given that the systems turned in at
our facility in Chicago are on average 10.2 years old and preliminary
research has shown that people use their computers for about six years
they must be storing them for four plus years. RFID can allow a
complete and reliable chain of custody that can generate better
consumer acceptance and therefore quicker equipment turn around. This
would be a better utilization of the carbon investment made in our
devices.
I also applaud the inclusion of sections 5, 6, and 7.
Please let me reiterate the following point . . . this legislation
will significantly contribute to bringing home the electronics
manufacturing industry.
Biography for Willie Cade
Willie Cade is the founder and CEO of PC Rebuilders & Recyclers
(PCRR). He started the company in 2000 to help underprivileged students
get cost effective computers. PCRR has placed over 40,000 refurbished
computers in schools, not-for-profit organizations and in homes of at
risk children. Mr. Cade has been at the for front of the computer reuse
industry for the past 15 years. In the early years he worked closely
with Microsoft to help create what is today's successful Community
Microsoft Authorized Refurbisher (Community MAR) program. He founded
the first ever refurbisher conference and continues to organize them
today. He is active nationally and internationally creating best
management practices that help reduce the possible harm of e-waste. Now
Mr. Cade's expertise is being shared with graduate and under graduate
students at the University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign. Along with
Wal-Mart and Microsoft he is co-sponsoring an e-waste ``new products''
competition this spring at the University.
Discussion
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Cade. And we would appreciate
your specific recommendations on definitions and we would
recommend again the panel any other recommendations they might
have on our draft as well as anyone in the audience or watching
or listening to us on a website now. This has been a
collaborative effort to get to the point we are now, but I am
sure that as we have more people thinking and giving input, we
can make it even better.
So at this point we will now have the first round of
questions, and the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Mr. Bond, you raised the issue earlier of the collaboration
with the private sector and the universities and how that is
going on now. I know that as this takes place, there is going
to be some proprietary research, so is there going to be any
kind of special provisions that we need in this bill that will
provide incentives for the public sector and private sector to
work together?
Mr. Bond. I think that as a general rule, the Federal
Government's role in doing a lot of the basic research,
fundamental research and very often through a grant structure
where you have a lead investigator, a lead at the university
who then invites private-sector participation at a pretty
fundamental level is very good and it allows for the
proprietary innovations that might be built on top of that, but
I think you will find a ready and willing partner in the
private sector to do some of that fundamental research, new
materials that could be incorporated into design, better uses
or testing and research into uses of new materials that we
haven't thought of before, technologies to recover materials. I
think the industry has shown that it is on the edge of its seat
and willing to----
Chair Gordon. So you don't think any kind of special
provisions need to be made for proprietary issues?
Mr. Bond. Well, we have some vehicles in the government
already for cooperative research and development agreements and
so forth that take that into account to protect intellectual
property, but I think there is a great agreement that there is
a first step where the government should lead and the private
sector is more than willing to participate.
Chair Gordon. On that topic, I think one of the biggest
obstacles to national e-waste R&D initiative, like many things,
is tech transfer and getting it from the academic research area
into industry, so I will just ask Mr. Bond if you want to, or
anybody else wants to, have any comments on how we can make
that transfer better.
Mr. Bond. Just in some very general terms, I want to
observe that I think the tech transfer laws in this country
have been one of the great, great global competitive advantages
we have had. As we try to maintain our global edge
competitively, I think we have to constantly look at that
because others--it is a competitive market and other
universities based in other countries are trying to attract
investment from some of the multinational companies that do
significant research. So I think we want to continue to look at
that and would certainly welcome thoughts from those in the
more academic side of the equation, but I think we need to have
a balance in this as we do in so many things to make sure that
as we divide the intellectual property, that it doesn't result
in a stalemate but it instead results in the tech transfer.
Chair Gordon. Well, let us ask anybody else on the panel.
Mr. Cade.
Mr. Cade. Thank you, Chair. I do teach at the University of
Illinois, Champaign Urbana, an e-waste sustainable class, and
one of the--we are working on those. Also, the University has
an international component to it. They have research centers
outside the United States. We are finding that their
cooperation with us has been extraordinarily wonderful, and we
are actually using students to take this pile of equipment and
bring it back to life. We have already discovered just through
a few trials some major issues that we need to input to our
friends over here at EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool) in terms of making this product more
accessible for reuse and refurbishment.
Chair Gordon. Anyone else want to comment?
Dr. Anastas. I would just suggest that there are existing
models that have been used in various agencies to address this
exact type of question. When you look at the Technology for
Sustainable Environment out of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), that has not only brought about excellent
industry-university partnerships but also sprouted quite a
number of new businesses. If you look at some of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) models, the industry-university
cooperative research centers, the engineering research centers,
and science and technology centers, these questions of tech
transfer and intellectual property have been dealt with well.
Chair Gordon. Mr. Bond, I know you would like to speak. I
would like to get on to one other question before my time runs
out, and maybe you want to help us with that one. The E.U. has
taken more of a regulatory position across the board than we
have in this country, although some states have. This bill
really is in the research area. But are there any lessons to be
learned from what the E.U. has done that would be pertinent to
our bill in terms of not regulations, but rather research? Is
anyone familiar with what they are doing over there or have
anything they want to suggest? Yes, sir.
Mr. Omelchuck. Mr. Chair, the E.U. has completed twice now,
I believe, comprehensive performance reviews of the e-waste
system implemented in Europe. They recently completed, I think
very recently in the last few weeks, completed a second kind of
comprehensive review of the system so that is available to be
researched. I recommend that we look closely at that. The other
striking thing about the E.U. system, the two things that I
would observe, are that even though it is a regulatorily
required comprehensive system, the actual rate of recovery of
electronics is surprisingly low, in the 35 percent range, which
means still 65 percent, even though it is a regulatorily
required system, still 65 percent of the e-waste is leaving the
system inappropriately, is escaping the system, which is a
surprising number, I think, for many of us.
Chair Gordon. Well, that is why Mr. Baird is very
interested in how do we--the psychology aspect of getting folks
to work with the system. My time is running out here, so
anybody else want to comment on the lessons from the E.U. Yes,
Dr. Thomas.
Dr. Thomas. One lesson from the E.U. is that there is some
kind of goal set forward by the government, and to move things
forward in the United States, it might not have to be an E.U.-
style program but some guidance to push forward recycling and
remanufacturing to let--because industry--it won't just be one
industry that needs to work on this. Somehow there needs to be
integration between the manufacturers and the retailers and the
recyclers and university researchers and EPA or some other
government agency could provide some forum for making these
organizations work together productively. That won't happen in
a vacuum.
Chair Gordon. It needs to be good, Mr. Bond, because----
Mr. Bond. It is going to be short. I don't know about good.
Just that there are a full range of stakeholders that should be
a part of that discussion and part of that research, the
government and its procurement rules, just to name one quickly.
Chair Gordon. Thank you.
Dr. Ehlers is recognized.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and first of all, thank
you for holding the hearing. This is a very important topic. I
was watching 60 Minutes a few weeks or months ago and wrote a
note to myself that I had to check into this. They were talking
about how they had followed a container of used computers,
waste computers, some of them post recycling, supposedly, and
followed it all the way to China where it was simply burned on
a trash heap after they had extracted some things. Everyone
along the line specifically violated the law because they are
not allowed to do this. So whatever we do, it has to have teeth
and it has to have enforcement.
Secondly, let me say the Minority regards this as a very
serious issue and would be very happy to work with you on
developing a really good and strong bill.
I looked at some of the options and you have mentioned some
of the options. I don't see any reason we can't do it. We just
have to make sure we do it right and we have to make sure we do
it fairly, and any specific suggestions you have along that
line would be useful. But before I go to you and ask for your
comments on that, let me just ask a question, a generic
question. What does the U.S. House of Representatives do with
its used computers? When I was involved in computerizing the
House for the first time in 1994 and 1995, we decided that any
used computers from the House would be available for purchase
by the employees, who loved that and many of them didn't have
good computers at the time and it got them in the home computer
business and we thought it was beneficial to the House too.
Later on we were told we were not allowed to do this because
that was somehow giving a bonus to the employees. I didn't
particularly worry about that but it turns out I don't know
whether it was GSA (General Services Administration) or what
stopped us from doing it. But it has gotten steadily worse. We
then proceeded in our district office, when we changed
computers, and donated them to nonprofit organizations. That
lasted two years and then we were told we couldn't do that
either. I think we have to broaden our discussion to the GSA
and what they are doing about this problem because they have
responsibility for a huge number of computers nationwide, and
if we can set up a program that works for the GSA, it most
likely will work for the Nation. Plus, I don't think it hurts
for the government to be first and find out what the burdens
are on this so that we are not imposing unusual burdens on the
private sector. We can answer their questions and say well, we
are doing it and this is how we are doing it and it works.
Mr. Baird. Will the gentleman yield for one second, Mr.
Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
Mr. Baird. I faced the same problem in my office this year,
would like to donate my computers to the local schools, and
have been prohibited. Jose Serrano, our colleague, has a bill
to allow us to do just that, and I would encourage all my
colleagues to co-sponsor that bill. It is ludicrous that we
can't give our replaced computers to local education, and I
applaud the gentleman for his initiative.
Mr. Ehlers. And I would even broaden it to other nonprofit
organizations. There are a lot of social organizations that
could easily pass these on to poor individuals who can't afford
one. That is my basic point. I hope we can answer the questions
internally about what the U.S. House does, what the GSA does,
and change that.
Back to--oh, I should mention, by the way, my wife would be
very happy if we adopt a good program because I cannot in good
conscience throw out a computer now. We have seven or eight of
them in the basement and the basement is starting to overflow
with that and my other junk.
I appreciate any comments you would like to make. Mr. Cade.
Mr. Cade. Thank you. Just--we do--we have worked over the
last number of years to try to get Executive Order 12999
changed so that refurbishers like myself can take the equipment
from government agencies and distribute them. The issue really
is around software and about the issue. In order to securely
give the equipment to us, it needs to be--the hard drive needs
to be wiped. It is tantamount to taking an engine out of a car
and delivering the car to someone's driveway and saying here,
you have got a great product, have fun with it. So we actually
have in the last three Congresses had legislation to change
Executive Order 12999 to allow refurbishers to get the
equipment and then pass it on to the not-for-profits, et
cetera, and I will be happy to take the equipment from your
home.
Mr. Ehlers. Yes, Dr. Anastas.
Dr. Anastas. I would just like to comment on your remark
that we need to do this right and comment on why it is so
important to have sustainable design frameworks that allow us
to do the right things right and not the right things wrong.
What I mean by that is, so often we see good intentions for
environmental and sustainability issues get it wrong, looking
at our solar photovoltaics that are using toxic scarce metals,
our biofuels that may not be compatible with our land-use
policies, our efficient lighting that may introduce toxins into
the environment. So how do you ensure that you are not going to
be doing the so-called right things wrong? And it is these
design frameworks of understanding that the intrinsic nature is
of the materials and energy flows that we are using in our
electronics, not only what we make but how we make it, and so
that is why I come back to the compass being more important
than the speedometer and knowing that when you are trying to
make something green and sustainable that you are actually
heading in the right direction.
Mr. Ehlers. A very good comment, and just a quick comment
in response. Individuals generally do not look to the future as
much as they should and analyze what can and should be done,
and yet you save money by doing it. I was struck this morning
when I heard the news once again there is a lot of talk about
the lead in the water in Washington, D.C., and the damage it
has done to the children. Every few years this appears and the
problem never gets solved. Kids continue to drink water with
lead in it. And if you just analyze the cost of what that is
compared to fixing the problem in the first place, I am sure
fixing it is infinitesimal and I think you will find the same
thing with the computer situation. If you do it right, it is
going to cost less in the long run than whatever we are doing
now or whatever might happen if we don't do things right.
With that, I yield back.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. My daughter has been
drinking that water. I am terrified. And we do need to get some
answers.
If I could real quickly--as usual, you know, you raised
some very good questions, some of which aren't particularly in
our jurisdiction but let me try to respond. It is my
understanding that Mike Thompson on the House side and Barbara
Boxer on the Senate side are organizing a recycling effort and
that there will be a time where we can do that. The second
thing is, as the former Chairman of the House Administration
Committee, why don't you and I collaborate and write a joint
letter to the Speaker and to Minority Leader Boehner about
those things that it may not be--you know, what we can do
administratively, maybe not legislatively but administratively
and make those recommendations and challenge them to do that?
So we will work together on that.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much, and if anyone wants an
original Mac SE, I have one in my basement.
Chair Gordon. Okay. Ms. Johnson, you have been very
patient. You are recognized for questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to pose a question to the panel. We have in
some of our schools a program where computers are rebuilt by
students and they are teaching them to do that. Do you see any
danger in that? Does that have to do with anything about
restricting where they are circulated?
Mr. Cade. The actual process of the refurbishment is
typically swapping out whole parts so there is typically no
danger associated with that. That is one of the reasons I
recommended earlier that we put in the legislation a definition
of ``hazardous'' and ``potentially hazardous.'' We don't see
any, and we have been audited with environmental experts on
those issues when we are refurbishing computers. We are
typically undoing screws or unplugging things. We are not
taking and grinding up the material to that end, and I am
certain that that is not happening in the schools. So with a
high degree of confidence I would say that there is not any
increased exposure risk to the students in that kind of a
program.
Mr. Bond. Congresswoman, if I could add too, the upside of
that is, a number of programs around the country have shown
that it serves to demystify the computer to the kids and make
them that much more willing to pursue a career in that field.
Ms. Johnson. Yes. How can we leverage existing R&D that may
be beneficial to solving the challenge of the e-waste?
Dr. Anastas. If I may, there is a tremendous portfolio of
research going on currently in green nanotechnology, some of
the leading groups out of the University of Oregon. There is
wonderful work going on in biomimetic materials. There is
wonderful work going on on new types of batteries, energy
storage, energy scavenging. That type of broad research is
being done for a wide range of purposes but is directly
relevant to the up-front design of next-generation electronics.
By leveraging that existing research, there could be a real
multiplier effect on the purposes of this legislation.
Ms. Johnson. What is the rationale for exporting it? Is it
for disposal or----
Mr. Omelchuck. If I may, the rationale is really not--you
know, it is not illegal or intentional activity by and large,
so it is being exported to these places that you saw in the 60
Minutes documentary. It is at the edge of legality. It is
neither legal in China nor is it really legal in the United
States so I think it is hard to describe the rationale. It is
being done because it is mildly profitable.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bond. If I could, Congresswoman, I would add that at
least theoretically, and I believe in practice, there are
examples too where someone would refurbish and then export what
had been considered e-scrap or e-waste to maybe a developing
nation or someplace where it would really be of use, and so you
want to make sure as you think of an international regime that
you don't somehow make that illegal because it was considered
scrap but it has been refurbished and could be put to use in
some other setting.
Mr. Omelchuck. And I would add to that that the reality is
that all electronics today, or almost all, are built in Asia,
and if this is where they end up, there are very legitimate
reasons to want to send the materials from which they were
built back to Asia because that is where they can be used by
and large and so there are legitimate reasons to do it. The
challenge is to do it appropriately.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Ranking Member Hall, do you have any questions?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was called away to an
emergency meeting and I don't know what questions have been
asked. I had looked forward to hearing their testimony, and I
will read it at a later time, and I thank you. I won't waste
your time with repetition of questions.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, sir. We will move on then to Mr.
Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it is important
that we come back to certain terminologies that could be very,
very damaging to this. Your reference to the term hazardous, we
have thrown that around and we like to say that, and the
argument, especially coming from California, is you always want
to go to the extreme of safety to avoid any possibility of
exposure on a lot of this stuff, and in California we have seen
what has happened with that. You can't walk into any store or
any hotel without a big warning sign, ``The carpeting may cause
cancer,'' you know, that basically people just turn off and
don't read it. But the definition of ``hazardous''--you know, I
served ten years on hazardous reviews boards and on
environmental health agencies, and the definition does matter,
doesn't it? It really draws a defined there yet.
Mr. Cade. Yes, and I think it is important to make the
distinction between hazardous material and potentially
hazardous, and much of the problems that you see in informal
recycling is the issues that they bring up using things like
cyanide, et cetera, so it is in the processing that those are
the real hazards that are coming up or the inappropriate
burnings and those kinds of things. So I think that is exactly
right, and I would defer to your experience in terms of writing
the legislation in terms of making those kinds of points. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chair, I just want to point that out
because it triggers certain processes and we have to be
careful, and I just--not to belabor but to give you an example.
We had a great system where there was an entrepreneur who went
around to all the shipyards and all the industrial places and
took the sandblasting sand and used that sandblasting sand in
an asphalt mix, in other words, recycled it, put it into a
product, avoided having to go out into the back land and mine
sand from riverbeds and stuff, and it was going into an asphalt
or concrete where it was stabilized, but because the item was a
waste product, it triggered a whole environmental oversight
that outlawed his ability to recycle it and it ended up having
to go to facilities to be thrown away rather than reused.
Nobody meant that kind of thing to happen so we have got to be
careful with our trigger going down. You have a comment?
Dr. Anastas. I would just say that this speaks directly to
the provisions in the bill for the physical, chemical property
database, that when you are looking at the substances in this
determination of hazardous or potentially hazardous, you are
looking at what are the intrinsic physical properties, chemical
properties that allow something to be hazardous, allow it to be
bioavailable, and those intrinsic properties are so essential
in this database because separating the intrinsic nature of
these substances from the circumstances, those about whether or
not people are going to be exposed, is the difference between
hazardous and potentially hazardous. So I think the provisions
for physical-chemical property database is well founded.
Mr. Bond. Just real quickly, underscoring the Chair saying
we have to get this right, it is further complicated by needing
to weigh other societal benefits, so originally in laptops we
went to fluorescent lamps because it was going to decrease the
amount of energy used, but then there are problems with
fluorescent lamps because they have mercury, so would you have
not wanted that societal goal met for this one? Now,
thankfully, we are moving to LED technologies, which are going
to be the next innovation and we will avoid a problem. As the
design for environment improves, the need for regulation
hopefully will go down.
Mr. Bilbray. And the issue of exportation, exporting the
material, the waste product, it is universal in recycling and
maybe one of the things we need to talk about is why we don't
make it legal to do more reprocessing within the boundaries of
the United States because I don't care if it is cardboard or if
it is e-waste, the rule is ship it thousands of miles away,
they will recycle it, come back out, increase the carbon
footprint and it becomes a real problem there. I think one of
the answers, and I am glad to see that Member Baird is
interested in this too, is this issue of the Federal Government
looking at purchases of materials and designing the e-material
from the beginning to be recyclable so that you not only
eliminate the waste problem but you provide a long-term source
of material for the next generation so that now you have
engineered something to where you build it with materials that
then can be taken and used as a natural resource or a recycled
resource for the next generation. There is a sustainable
economic base, and I think I am very excited with that, and
that is, Mr. Chair, where we get into an issue that in the air
strategy we always call the technology forcing regulation, and
one way to do that would be for us within our own purchasing
and procurement, and as Ranking Member on Procurement and
Government Oversight, I would like to work with this committee
at moving that item one step further and setting an example for
the next generation of e-recycling and that is basically using
it as the mainstream, not as a subsidiary of the source for
material. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Smith, I apologize to you for jumping over you.
Promptness should be rewarded, and we will get to you right
after Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to applaud
you, Mr. Chair, for taking the initiative that Mr. Ehlers
raised. It is tremendously frustrating, we are mandated to
replace our computers because they fall out of currency with
the current operating systems and then we see local schools in
our district and we can't give our computers to them. Instead,
we have to transfer them and get them scrubbed. It is crazy.
And anything you can do to fix that would benefit our kids and
make a lot more sense.
I want to ask a few questions. My district has made a real
effort on e-waste recycling but I would like to know something
about what are the best practices and what do we know actually
works. Let me--I do a lot of work on my own computers at home,
and just uninstalling a single program is frankly a pain
oftentimes. Are there industries--so what are my obstacles, and
I am a pretty environmentally responsible person. What are my
obstacles? One is, it is fairly complicated to uninstall.
Secondly, you just don't know what to do with the waste. You
sit there with batteries or an old cell phone, or I don't know
how many old chargers I have sitting around that I don't even
know what they go to. There is copper in there and that is
useful and a valuable material but I don't know what to do with
it. So we have seen in other areas that the computer industry
has done things to establish standardization. The USB port is
an example. I mean, there are hundreds. They have these whole
networks of people that work together. Are they doing anything
to come up with standard procedures or mechanisms to facilitate
this? For example, a well-hidden complete delete button that
deletes every--you know, that auto-scrubs your entire computer
for when the time comes to put it away, standard mechanisms by
which you could extract transformers or copper, et cetera. What
is being done in that realm and what are the best practices to
help public citizens respond?
Mr. Cade. Mr. Baird, we actually have built into our
refurbished computers the ability to do exactly what you are
talking about, a one-button, well-hidden erase. We did it
because we provide our equipment across the United States and
we provide 800-number support based in the United States for
that equipment, and what we found is, approximately 80 percent
of our errors that our users have are software related, not
hardware. They will call me up and say my computer doesn't work
and so after a few minutes I will go through and I go, if you
are willing to lose everything on your computer, then fine, I
will reset that back to factory settings for you, and so you
are absolutely right. We need to develop those. And our process
takes about 20 minutes in order to completely reset the data.
Unfortunately, what it doesn't do, it doesn't--because of the
nature of the way software has been designed, it doesn't erase
the information, it just loses the ability to find it. And so I
agree with you totally that we need to have or some way
encourage, particularly hard disc manufacturers or any storage
devices a one-button, let us erase it all and know that that is
done.
I looked into my drawer before I came today and I have
approximately 17 different USB drives with storage. I have no
idea what is on any of them. I took a magnet and tried to
degauss them. They don't degauss. I also, by the way, put it
through a washing machine because it was left in my pants. The
thing still works. So we have gotten lots of equipment out
there, and if you look at the NIST [National Institute of
Standards and Technology] special report 80088 on erasing
information, it is a much bigger problem and especially since--
I mean, I am personally concerned about it because I do my tax
returns myself on my computer. I don't want to change them out.
And I understand. I think, by the way, that is the fundamental
problem with e-waste right now is people just don't have
confidence in understanding how to get rid of the--and they
need to rely on people like me.
Mr. Baird. And you don't want to take the time. I have got
several old Mac laptops sitting around. I don't know what is on
them but I don't want somebody else to find out what is on
them.
Mr. Cade. Well, and that is why it is so important, the
work that we are doing with Dr. Thomas on RFID (radio frequency
identification), individual identification of product, because
that will give us a verifiable custody history that we can work
on, and it is the kind of thing that we need to develop, and
just back to Representative Johnson's point about the nature of
this legislation. It has requirements in it that it is multi-
departmental in terms of working on these research centers.
That is an absolute must in my mind, everywhere from the art
and design and industrial design product all the way through to
the chemist and all the products that they are working with.
Mr. Omelchuck. I would like to respond also. I think,
Representative Baird, your first premise was that the House
needs to obsolete our computers at a pretty rapid rate because
they are no longer compatible with the new operating systems,
and I think that is an assumption that we as the society need
to look at pretty closely.
Mr. Baird. I agree. I didn't want to do this. The former
computer worked just fine. It now crashes with regularity. So I
paid more money to get a system that works less well and then I
can't recycle or reuse my prior system. That is pretty stupid.
Mr. Omelchuck. Right. So I think that is really a
fundamental issue that--and it was part of my testimony to
encourage research in the amount of e-waste, hardware waste
caused actually by software obsolescence and of course I think
we all recognize that that is a very challenging problem to
address with the hardware-software industry. That scares the
bejeebers out of them to have us looking at that, but I think
it is something that needs to be looked at in the light of day
and thought about.
The other comment I wanted to make is, you talked about
design for end-of-life and how we design these products for
end-of-life, and I just wanted to return to the point that e-
waste doesn't do that. However, there are developing research
programs around design for end-of-life on electronic products.
In fact, EPEAT, the system we operate, has probably the best
criteria of any eco label around designed for end-of-life and
to be candid, it needs more research. We don't really quite yet
understand how design affects end-of-life scenarios and the
challenge in the United States is that the actual process used
to recycle electronics is all over the map, from a room full of
guys with hammers to very sophisticated processes and so what--
how do you design a product to be recovered efficiently in each
of these scenarios. That is an area for further research that I
think this bill could support.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Baird. As usual, you hit a hot
button, and Mr. Smith, you are recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, a couple questions for Dr. Thomas. In light of the
fact that I think many recycling efforts are cost effective
both long-term and short-term, both directly and indirectly,
and when you mentioned that approximately 18 percent of
electronics are being recycled right now, does that mean the
first user is not the last user or does that mean like the
second user might be the last user as well?
Dr. Thomas. That 18 percent is an estimate made by the U.S.
EPA and that includes in that number both reuse and recycling.
Mr. Smith. Okay, so----
Dr. Thomas. It is kind of an upper limit number. The actual
number is less.
Mr. Smith. In that 18 percent, that might also----
Dr. Thomas. That includes reuse.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you very much. And then furthermore,
we know that there are certainly energy costs associated with
some recycling efforts and reusing and refurbishing as well.
Are there any organizations that collect the data on the energy
consumption so that consumers might be more familiar with what
might be a best practice?
Dr. Thomas. Yes. University researchers do that kind of
analysis. The energy use of products can also be directly
measured, and I believe that in EPEAT's ratings for green
electronics, energy use is included.
Mr. Smith. All right. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Bond, one of the things that I don't believe your
testimony addressed is the rather patchwork nature of State
laws and various approaches, and being a former State
legislator I advocate, you know, flexibility. I think that we
want states to be innovative and by no means do we want to see
a boilerplate approach to this. But what lines of research
would you say are most helpful for your members to be able to
comply with so many different laws and what kind of approach
might you suggest?
Mr. Bond. In terms of the infamous patchwork, I would have
to think a little bit about whether that question lends itself
much to research although you could certainly research the
added cost, and perhaps cost to competitiveness of some of
that. We confront this as an industry in multiple arenas where
you do have this infamous patchwork across the states so at the
same time, we are a federal system and you need to respect
that, so the industry has tried to engage where they can. It is
one of the reasons why we as an association have most of the
State leading tech associations affiliated with us so that we
really can work on that basis. So I think that is an ongoing
challenge for us. I think the best solution is to look forward
to look for design for environment solutions so that you stay a
step ahead of the regulators because ultimately--in this case,
that patchwork, if you are reducing the need because you have
really designed for the environment, then you don't have as
much regulation. I think that ultimately we do want to make
sure as a country we keep our innovation advantage. I think
that is critically important in so many ways. If the Chair
would bear a short analogy, it is kind of like Mr. Gordon is
famously, I think, the fastest Member of the House when it
comes to the annual three-mile race here, but at some point if
we put enough weight on him, it would have to be in the form of
a vest because he is not putting it on naturally, but at some
point enough weight would allow somebody else to win that race.
So we want to keep Mr. Gordon winning, we want to keep America
winning.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, and I
guess I would reiterate the fact that, you know, many of these
efforts I think can be very profitable and I think that is
good, especially in light of certain conditions facing our
economy today, and having also served at the local level where
a small town in Nebraska rarely has a landfill, I did learn a
lot in terms of what we can and should do and we did do to
extend the useful life of a landfill in a good, sustainable
manner as well.
So thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and really let me just
say, I think the thrust and the basis of this legislation is to
make recycling a profitable, you know, business model for
either the companies that Mr. Bond represents or others that
want to do it, so that is what we want to do. We want to make
this profitable so it is not a burden. And the other thing I
will just quickly, a side note, you talk about as a State
legislator, there is sort of a life cycle that I have seen here
in Congress, and that is that industry starts off by saying,
you know, no regulation, no regulation, and then some
entrepreneurial state will--you know, they will do something
here, another one will do something there, and then industry
says oh, please regulate us, please regulate us because they
need to have that continuity. That is something you will see
over and over here.
Mr. Lujan, a new Member of our committee, is recognized.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everyone
that took the time to be with us today. I would like to get
back to some of the discussion that took place with the concern
of exporting some of the toxic materials and the number of
people that are sometimes exposed to these, especially because
most of them are low-paid workers that are sometimes exposed to
these, and I appreciate the fact that we have been talking
about sustainable design frameworks. The challenge is to do it
appropriately and the recognition of the physical-chemical
property database. I would just like to hear your thoughts on
other accountability measures or standards that could be
implemented within the e-recycling community to prevent this
from happening.
Dr. Thomas. I would like to point out that there are
actually laws governing the export of used cathode ray tubes
(CRTs). Those are the big monitors for TVs and CRTs. And there
was a GAO (Government Accounting Office) report last year that
concluded that those laws need to be enforced. So some of the
legislation already exists. You might look at the CRT rule and
it may need to cover some other electronic devices as well.
Dr. Anastas. I completely agree with the perspective that
we have a large problem that needs to be dealt with today in e-
waste. I guess the only point that I make is, the reason that
the research, the innovations, and design for disassembly and
new materials and new energy storage is so important is so that
we know that two steps forward in our current problem is going
to be two steps forward and not one step back, that we don't
keep on creating. As we all know, the rate of production of
these electronics is not slowing down and so that is why the
design is so important in addition to the problem that you are
focusing on.
Mr. Bond. And I would add, Mr. Lujan, just very quickly,
that you will find our industry very much in support of strong
international safeguards and a regime here to protect workers
and the environment here and around the world. These things do
get tied up in other international agreements whether it is
trade or others and so again affirming the Chair's call for
getting it right. There are some facets to the question but you
are going to find the industry supportive of your core goals.
Mr. Cade. Towards that end, the U.S. EPA just concluded
back in October last year standards called Responsible
Recycling. I was part of that stakeholder process. It took
about three years to work through it. I think a lot of the
issues are addressed there. There are some people who would
suggest that they are not high enough standards. I suggest that
what we need to do is implement swiftly those responsible
recycling standards, or the R2 standards, and then continue the
research to see what is next in those steps. What has been
presented and what is now public documentation is really,
really quite good, and I believe the Institute for Scrap
Recycling Industries is going to be the first body to have
certification available for electronics recyclers, and quite
frankly, we are excited about doing that. Hopefully that will
come about by the end of the year.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you. And Mr. Cade, specifically in your
testimony you also addressed, and we heard from you today,
about how we could be utilizing some of the technology to
support a smart grid application, and just to hear your
thoughts again just to expand that on a large-scale application
of what kind of benefits we could see as a result of that?
Mr. Cade. Well, the smart grid by the utilities will
bring--will allow utilities to control the grid to the home. In
order to really take advantage of that smart grid and
differential pricing, you are going to need the user in the
home, the homeowner, or the person in the apartment, to take
advantage of that differential pricing or that deferred usage,
and technology is an obvious answer to those issues. Also too
is when this equipment is rebuilt and refurbished, it is U.S.
jobs, and frankly, I am worried about that right now.
And I believe a perfect example of what we can do in terms
of refurbished equipment is the coming 2010 decennial census.
It is a relatively short-term project as projects go on a
government basis. It will have relatively large volume. I think
that if we made sure in the census that refurbished equipment
was part of the equation, I think we can really see it as a
demonstration project that would be very bold by the Federal
Government to bring some real awareness that reuse is a viable
option.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Lujan.
I see no one to my right other than my friend, Mr. Hall,
who has passed. Dr. Griffith, would you like to be recognized?
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a very,
very important discussion that we are having, and the
manufacturer of consumer products with known carcinogens is an
interesting concept, and we recognize that this is not only a
great part of our economy but we also recognize the danger that
we see here, and even though we may ship them off to be
incinerated in some other country, once they are in the air we
know they are on the way back here. And so small, trace
amounts, whether it be antimony, arsenic, or brominated
hydrocarbons, we recognize that 200-plus years ago the first
malignancy that we related to hydrocarbon exposure were the
chimney sweeps in London with testicular cancer. We know that
this is going to occur as these electronic products become more
imminent, closer to our skin, our bodies, and even implanted
into us. So I compliment the Chair on this subject because I
believe that it has great ramifications for us because we are
not going to decrease the amount of these products in our
environment but we are going to increase them, and I think the
safety of it is not just in recycling, et cetera. I think it
has a health care ramification. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Griffith.
Now the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I was at
another meeting and missed most of your testimony, so my
question is fairly basic, but are there any existing e-waste
programs either domestically or in some other foreign nation
that we can actually look at for its merit to further study,
possibly to replicate at this point?
Mr. Cade. I would defer back to the Responsible Recycling
standards that were set up by the U.S. EPA and really look to
those as the standard that we have today, but again, I want to
reiterate that we need more research and that is why I applaud
the Chair in this draft legislation that we really do need to
research and make sure that we do it right in the process. I
mean, just kind of an interesting aside, my carbon offset or
mitigation for traveling to this meeting is refurbishing a
computer. You refurbish two computers, it is the equivalent of
taking a car off the road for a year.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Yes?
Mr. Omelchuck. It is the case that, deferring to Mr. Bond's
numbers, that approximately 18 states now have electronics e-
waste bills in place today. In addition, the best-known
international example is the E.U. has a program. China is in
the process of emulating that largely, not entirely. So there
are a lot of models that can be researched and I think it would
be very fruitful to research the environmental and economic
aspects of all those and there is enough to research.
Mr. Cade. If I can just add to that, one of the things that
is really interesting, of those State models, there is only
one, the State of Illinois, where reuse is actually included in
the legislation and there is actually concepts on that. I think
one of the things that is the advantage of all of the states
is, we have a number of different experiments going on about e-
waste and the research is very important. I think when we talk
to people, for example, in Oregon, about their law and we talk
to them about reuse and how it was included in Illinois, they
kind of went oh, yeah, we forgot that. So I think there is real
fertile ground by the States' entrepreneurship, as the Chairman
represented, coming out with the legislation and I suspect in a
couple of years that we will be back here with the question of
national legislation, and if we do our research right, we will
have some very good answers and some very good understanding.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you.
Chair Gordon. Just a quick comment. I think you are
correct, and that is what we are trying to do--is get in front
of that to have the research so when that inevitable likelihood
of legislation comes up or regulation, that we can try to do it
right.
Ms. Biggert, you would like to close us out?
Ms. Biggert. Yes. I probably could use a lifeline because I
missed all the questions. I am sorry if I ask something that
has already been asked and I am sorry. I had two Committee
hearings and one markup all at the same time and I need a
clone. Do you do cloning too or just computers? I think what is
important, you know, is the recycling and maybe, Mr. Cade, you
can just tell us--you probably told us--just tell us one more
time about how important the reuse is and is there anything
that would be better in what to do with our e-waste?
Mr. Cade. Well, again, thank you Congresswoman, for your
question. I think reuse really is the fundamental issue. The
analogy I like to use is, currently without electronics it is
the equivalent of taking a loaf of bread and taking three
slices out of it and then putting it in the cupboard and two
years later coming back and wondering why it is moldy and no
longer good to use. We need to be able to make sure that people
feel safe about getting rid of their equipment, that we have
that standard set and that it is clear and it is transparent to
individuals, and once that happens, then they will start to
bring their equipment out and then we need to be able to have
the database necessary to understand what is in that product so
that we can figure out how to reuse it. So we need to build a
complete infrastructure from scratch that includes reuse, that
includes processing and includes understanding of what
chemicals, et cetera, are in there. That was quite frankly in
the stakeholder negotiations on R2. It was incredibly difficult
to try to parse out all of those different steps with the lack
of data.
So, you know, Mr. Chair, I encourage you. The blanks that I
saw in the draft legislation were basically around the dollar
amounts. I know it is a tough request but I think money spent
here will go a long way to helping our environment and helping
not only individuals but also all of what we do here. So thank
you very much.
Dr. Anastas. If I could just add to that, I completely
support what has been said about the recycle, reuse, and the
imperative of that. We want to also keep an eye on design so
that we make sure that we are not cycling materials through our
society and our economy that are toxic, that are hazardous. The
point that I would like to make is that there is nothing about
the performance of these materials, whether it is in a display,
in a housing, in battery storage, that requires them to be
toxic. There is nothing about the manufacturer of an electronic
that requires it to use literally thousands of times more
material than actually winds up in the product. These are
design challenges, and by taking on the basic research with the
sustainability frameworks, we can change this equation.
Ms. Biggert. Mr. Omelchuck.
Mr. Omelchuck. Thank you. I would like to kind of add to
Dr. Anastas's point and remind us that because the dramatic
share of the impacts of electronics happen during their
manufacture and their indirect materials, my point is, it is a
pleasant concept to think about closing the material loop on
electronics, and if we could only recover them at the end, we
could make new electronics out of the old electronics and we
would be--you know, that would be a nice closed loop. And the
reality is that if we were to do that 100 percent, recover 100
percent of electronics, we would be recovering perhaps a tenth
of one percent of the environmental impact that was invested in
manufacturing electronics. So I think it is important for us to
keep that in mind, that closing the material loop is really not
the goal, the overall goal.
Ms. Biggert. Do you have any figures about how much goes
into the landfill versus how much is recovered and reused?
Mr. Cade. There are some figures, Dr. Thomas has a few, but
quite frankly, those numbers I don't trust. We did a two-week
study at one of the four waste collection centers of the city
of Chicago and asked them to pull all computers that came
through their garbage trucks, in other words, someone literally
put it in their garbage. We asked them to pull all the PCs out
of there, and there were only 37 that came in a two-week period
for about a quarter of a million households. So it just doesn't
seem like the numbers work on that. By the way, we did take one
of the hard drives that had gone through the compression----
Ms. Biggert. That had been squished?
Mr. Cade. That had been squished, and we were able to read
the information and who owned it. We looked up on the Internet
and we found the guy's address. So we were able to actually
backtrack with that. So again, it is important stuff that we
need to work on.
Mr. Bond. Congresswoman, if I could, I just wanted to
underscore that many of the leading companies, I will give the
example of HP, for instance, that have recycling programs, they
do not send materials to landfills. So I don't want you to
assume that everything automatically is headed----
Ms. Biggert. No, I was thinking more of the consumer
probably is the one that doesn't know what to do with it.
Chair Gordon. I think the doctor might have a rebuttal.
Ms. Biggert. Okay, Dr. Thomas.
Dr. Thomas. No, I actually want to agree that we don't
really know where electronics are going and how much is
recycled. EPA tried to estimate this. They just pretty much
have to sit down in a room with a piece of paper and make some
estimates. We don't know where they are. We don't know how many
are in people's basements, how long they keep them there. We
don't know how many are sent to other countries. There is just
nothing. We know very well what goes through the manufacturing
system, what is retailed, what is sold and after that it is
just dark.
Ms. Biggert. I have a couple in my attic that are really
old and they are the old Macs with the little screen and my
kids used to use and I keep worrying about them being there.
They are too old to be reusable, but what do I do with them?
Just take them to the recycling centers that we have for
electronics?
Mr. Cade. Congresswoman, I will pick it up next week. I
will be in town.
Ms. Biggert. Well, I am going to have to dig them out. I
have got a lot in the attic. Thank you.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Biggert. Let me thank our
panel for a very interesting hearing, and let me once again
suggest that we are welcome to your specific suggestions. This
is only a draft. Mr. Hall raised some very good questions in
his earlier comments. We want to try to address those so we can
get the very best bill we can. This is an important topic.
And so now the record will remain open for additional
statements from the Members and for answers to any of the
follow-up questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. The
hearing is now is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Valerie Thomas, Anderson Interface Associate Professor of
Natural Systems, School of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
and School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. The discussion draft includes a section that would make funding
available for joint public/private research projects.
Q1a. How would the program in the draft legislation differ from
existing programs at the federal level?
A1a. Currently, there are no programs funding e-waste research at the
federal level. Researchers proposing e-waste research can submit
proposals to broad National Science Foundation programs related to
reducing the environmental impacts of manufacturing; in this case the
proposals compete against all other manufacturing and sustainability
research topics.
Q1b. How would this funding effort integrate into the existing overall
e-waste strategy?
A1b. The U.S. EPA has been promoting e-waste recycling; this funding
could support that effort.
Q2. Many of you discuss what we should do for electronic waste that
will result from products that are currently being sold or are on the
drawing board. What do we do with all the orphan waste and products
people still have stored in their attics? How will research assist us
in properly disposing of this type of electronic waste?
A2. Immediate e-waste problems should be addressed by action, not
research. Enforcement of the CRT rule, more comprehensive regulation of
electronic waste exports, and legislation for end-of-life management of
electronics would provide a basis for development of appropriate
electronics recycling capability for existing products.
Q3. What lessons can be learned from the ``Mercury-Containing and
Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act'' about federal efforts to encourage
recycling?
A3. The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act does
not require battery recycling. It requires that rechargeable batteries
have a recycling label and that they be easily removable, that EPA
establish a public education program, and it loosens the hazardous
waste restrictions on handling and transport of batteries. Despite
significant voluntary efforts to promote recycling, the battery
recycling rate remains below 20 percent. The lesson is that these
measures are not sufficient to ensure high recycling rates.
Q3a. Why do you believe that consumers will not recycle e-waste
instead of disposing of it?
A3a. Currently, it is generally not easy for consumers to recycle e-
waste.
Q3b. Car batteries are one of the few products that are recycled with
regularity. This reality has to do, in part, with the fact that auto
repair shops collect old batteries when they are replaced. How could
this type of success be replicated in the e-waste field?
A3b. Most states have strong lead-acid battery recycling laws that
prohibit lead-acid battery land disposal or incineration and require
recycling, that require battery sellers to take back batteries for
recycling, that require battery sellers to charge a deposit for sale of
batteries in some cases, and that specify fines for noncompliance.
This model of recycling could be replicated for e-waste.
Q4. You suggest that a standardized label is needed for identifying
and tracking various models of electronic equipment, and further
suggest that manufacturers and recyclers would derive benefits from
this system.
Q4a. Can you expand on how labeling, be it electronic or printed,
would improve upon visual identification and sorting of these pieces of
equipment?
A4a. Visual identification and hand-sorting by trained workers can
indeed be quite effective for some tasks.
Automation does, however, have many advantages. Labels can be read
automatically, either by a bar code reader (for bar code labels) or by
an RFID reader (for RFID tags), and the information would be
automatically recorded in a computerized database, which can link to
information about that product, such as the value of components, the
identification of hazardous components, instructions for dismantlement,
and so on.
Specifically, labeling could allow for better identification of re-
usable parts; reusable parts are a key component of the profitability
of many electronics recyclers. In addition, labeling can significantly
reduce costs for reporting to regulatory agencies and to large
customers; recyclers report that these reporting costs are significant.
The benefits of automation for recycling are the same as the
benefits of automation for recycling. Initial benefits of automation
include some cost reduction due to efficiency and some cost reduction
due to reduced labor costs. As automation becomes more integrated into
the industrial process, it allows for the development of new processes
and innovations.
Q4b. To optimize these efficiencies, is labeling needed for overall
units, or should labeling also include components?
A4b. Discussions with recycling industry representatives generally
indicate that labeling of key components as well as the overall unit
would be most effective.
Q5. There is a numbering system associated with the recycling of
plastics. However, it has been suggested that this system does not work
well due to lack of public knowledge. How would you propose to prevent
similar difficulties with electronic labeling for recycling?
A5. The plastics labeling system was developed to help consumers sort
plastics. Plastic recycling technology has changed over time so that
the numbers are no longer relevant to the recycling technologies used
in many locations.
The technology for e-waste recycling can also be expected to change
over time. For this reason, the label should simply identify the make
and model of the product; the information about the recycling of that
product would be kept in databases that can be changed without needing
to change the label.
Q6. What are the energy costs of recycling, reusing, or refurbishing
electronics? What organizations collect data of this sort?
A6. No organizations are collecting and reporting data on the direct
energy costs of recycling, reusing, and refurbishing electronics. The
environmental impacts of recycling and refurbishing operations are
generally assumed to be small compared to the environmental benefits of
recycling. Life cycle assessments indicate electronics manufacturing is
highly energy intensive and that, therefore, reuse of electronics can
save energy by reducing manufacturing energy needs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ E. Williams, Energy Intensity of Computer Manufacturing: Hybrid
Assessment Combining Process and Economic Input-Output Methods, Envir.
Sci. Technol. 38 (22):6166-6174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Paul T. Anastas, Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in
the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment, School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies; Director, Center for Green
Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale University
Questions submitted by Chair Bart Gordon
Q1. How would a database containing the chemical and physical
properties of materials used, or potentially used, in electronics be
used? Does such a database currently exist?
A1. I am not aware of a database that duplicates the purpose of the
proposed database. The proposed database would be used by electronics
designers in assessing the physical/chemical properties which are
directly related to both the performance as well as the impact of the
electronic on human health and the environment. By having this
information, those wishing to ensure that our high performance
computers have a reduced impact on the environment can use it to
identify substitute chemicals and alternative substances in the
electronics components.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. The discussion draft includes a section that would make funding
available for joint public/private research projects.
Q1a. How would the program in the draft legislation differ from
existing programs at the federal level?
A1a. I am not aware of any programs that are focused on the issue of
the impacts of electronics on human health and the environment
throughout their life cycle. The research that would be the basis of
this draft legislation would provide new design tools to ensure that
our current electronics waste programs are more effective and, as
importantly, make sure that our future electronics don't cause the same
issues as our current and historic approaches to designing electronics.
Q1b. How would this funding effort integrate into the existing overall
e-waste strategy?
A1b. While there is currently good work being conducted on electronics
recycling and reuse, there is little research focusing on the basis of
how to make all life cycle stages of electronics less harmful to humans
and the environment. While the electronic waste programs currently are
making a bad situation less bad, there is research needed to understand
how we design our electronics to be genuinely good for humans and the
environment. This means ensuring that they have increased performance
and reduced adverse impact on the environment. Rather than simply
dealing with only the waste at the end-of-life stage, these
sustainability frameworks allow practitioners to be able to design such
that economic and environmental goals are mutually reinforcing.
Q2. Many of you discuss what we should do for electronic waste that
will result from products that are currently being sold or are on the
drawing board. What do we do with all the orphan waste and products
people still have stored in their attics? How will research assist us
in properly disposing of this type of electronic waste?
A2. The research that will be done under this legislation can help deal
with the existing waste in many ways. The research can allow us to
better understand how to separate the wide range of substances that
make up most electronics that include plastics, polymers, metals,
glass, and much more. By being able to separate these substances, we
begin to be able to extract the value from this waste and use it
productively. The research will also involve new sensors to be built
into new disassembly facilities. It will involve new process and
reactor technologies to be able to transform these mixed materials.
This research will need many disciplines involved including
electrochemists, mechanical engineers, product designers, analytical
chemists, and others. While I am only scratching the surface of the
various ways that this research can impact existing orphan electronics,
it is only because the potential is enormous and there may be
approaches in the research community that people have not even
considered as yet.
Q3. You point out that electronic production is increasing
exponentially, so that even with steady improvements in each generation
of devices, the overall negative environmental impact may still
increase. What level of improvement over time is needed to begin to
reduce the negative consequences of e-waste?
A3. The good news about the approaches that I have outlined in the
testimony about sustainable design through the 12 Principles of Green
Chemistry and Green Engineering is that it is not merely reducing
material and energy (which it is), it is also addressing the intrinsic
nature of the energy and the materials used in the electronics and
throughout their life cycle. This means that even if some level of
``waste'' were continue to be produced, the inherent nature of that
waste would be of reduced concern for humans and the environment
because it would be less toxic, less depleting, more degradable, less
persistent, etc. These improvements would be coupled with the
innovations in performance that have marked the history of the
electronics industry and make the environmental and economic
performances work hand-in-hand. This has been achieved in a number of
other industry sectors and the potential in the electronics sector is
tremendous.
Q4. You quote a 1999 study that suggests the average lifespan for a PC
is two years.
Q4a. Is this driven mostly by businesses that regularly replace the
inventory while home consumers hang onto their equipment longer?
A4a. I am not aware of the exact data on the breakdown of business
electronics lifetime versus home electronics lifetime.
Q4b. Has there been no change in the life-spans of personal computers
in the last 10 years since this study was published?
A4b. The issue is very often not the functional lifetime of a computer
or other electronics. Many of the electronics that are ``waste'' work
fine and their life-spans are very long. These electronics are
discarded because they are viewed as not having the latest capabilities
or are stylistically not as appealing. Making the electronics simply
more durable is not going to address these issues. Making their
functionality and upgradability more modular may be one way to address
the issue.
Q4c. Do consumers and businesses have similar patterns of use and
disposal of electronic devices?
A4c. I am not aware of data on the use and disposal patterns of
business and consumers.
Q5. What is your definition of ``toxic'' and ``hazardous material?''?
Is the goal of complete elimination of these materials realistic?
A5. The definition of hazard is the ability to cause adverse
consequence. There is nothing about the chemicals and substances used
in electronics and the functions we wish them to serve that REQUIRES
them to be toxic. That being the case, it is simply a scientific and
design challenge to address this issue through the research this bill
supports. This reduction and elimination of hazardous substances
through green chemistry has been done by many companies in many sectors
and it can certainly be done by the electronics sector. The research
that will allow it to happen will simultaneously benefit the
performance and economics of the electronics industry.
Q6. Does better design necessarily mean less toxic, more efficient and
easily recyclable? Would it also include more focused designing for
difference consumer groups? How would that alter the environmental
impact of electronic products?
A6. Hazard is a design flaw. Unless a particular hazard is intended,
such as in the case of pesticides, then unintended hazard--unintended
adverse consequence--is something that can and should be addressed.
Q7. You describe a lack of quality data on the stocks and flows of
various materials crucial to the electronics industry. What mechanisms
currently exist to estimate the amount of precious metals available on
the market and the reserves of those materials?
A7. The best work in this area that I am aware of is being conducted by
Prof. Thomas Graedel of Yale University on the stocks and flows of
metals in commerce. I am aware that his research requires working with
national agencies in the U.S. and around the world as well as with
private data sources. There is very little research funding in this
area for the development of data sources. This is important of course
strategically both for economic and national security reasons.
Q8. In your testimony, you define frameworks of sustainable design and
illustrate your point with the example of closing the material loop, or
working towards achieving a zero waste scenario.
Q8a. In order for this approach to work, particularly with material
synergies outside the electronics industries, how would you propose
fostering communication and information exchange between parties?
A8a. The sustainability design frameworks outlined in the testimony
view closed loops as merely one aspect of sustainable design. It is
essential to incorporate design into the inherent nature of the
substances and energy sources to ensure they are benign and sustainable
as well. Closed loops can be achieved at many scales; in the process,
within a factory, within an industrial park, or within a city. Each of
these scales will require different levels of communication and
coordination. Transparency on what materials are flowing through a
system is essential. This requires companies and other organizations to
be willing or required to both know what materials are coming into and
being released by their operations as well be willing to share this
information. This communication and information exchange will allow for
the boldest opportunities to be realized. Even in the absence of this
level of communication, individual companies and industry sectors can
still achieve closed loops very effectively within themselves.
Q8b. Would the green database outlined in the draft legislation
sufficient? Or would it be necessary to incorporate a clearinghouse
such as the pollution prevention resource exchange?
A8b. The database suggested in the legislation would be an essential
element that would enable closed loops to happen but it would not be
sufficient on its own. It would inform designers what is possible in
closed loop systems but not necessarily provide enough detail on where
those materials are used geographically and industrially. A resource
exchange database would be valuable but should be more robust than the
current EPA database.
Q9. How would you suggest adapting the IGERT program, which currently
focuses on interdisciplinary research and education, to include
partnerships with industry?
A9. The IGERT program is regarded as one of the crown jewels of the
research programs from NSF. Partnership research programs with industry
could be achieved through the development of a parallel program or an
option within the IGERT program However, it may be easier to look at
programs such as the NSF's Industry University Cooperative Research
Centers (IUCRC) and instead extend those to include educational aspects
to them especially for graduate students. The IUCRC has already dealt
well with many of the problematic issues that arise in academic-
industry partnerships and this approach would ensure that the IGERT
program is not unintentionally disrupted.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Phillip J. Bond, President, TechAmerica
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. The discussion draft includes a section that would make funding
available for join public/private research projects.
Q1a. How would the program in the draft legislation differ from
existing programs at the federal level?
A1a. There are currently no programs at the federal level that would
establish public/private research projects into the issue of green
electronics design. The program, therefore, would establish a new
program with a new focus.
Q1b. How would this funding effort integrate into the existing overall
e-waste strategy?
A1b. Currently, there is no federal strategy for providing direction or
prioritization on the issue of e-waste. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency regulates the management of hazardous wastes, which
may include some (not all) electronic products. This funding effort
would help prioritize environmental risks from electronic products and
provide overall direction to a federal strategy.
Q2. Many of you discuss what we should do for electronic waste that
will result from products that are currently being sold or are on the
drawing board. What do we do with all the orphan waste and products
people still have stored in their attics? How will research assist us
in properly disposing of this electronic waste?
A2. It is correct that design incentives or guideline or standards will
not address historic electronic waste, which will require proper
management. The research that will be generated through this
legislation will help us determine which types of historic waste will
require hazardous waste management and which may be discarded in
conventional waste management facilities due to its low-risk status.
Currently, that very basic information is missing.
Q3. In your support for a National Academies study of e-waste, you
suggest that an authoritative baseline of e-waste impacts is needed.
What impacts of e-waste are currently in dispute?
A3. There has never been a science-based assessment conducted of the
environmental risks posed by electronic products--as a result, this
central issue, remains in dispute. Also, the best ways to manage the
different types of e-waste--some products have high reuse potential,
some products can be managed in municipal solid waste facilities and
some will require treatment as hazardous waste--the categorization and
requirements for each have never been fully researched and addressed.
Q4. How are EPEAT's criteria affecting producers' design decisions?
A4. EPEAT, as a federal and institutional purchaser procurement
requirement, operates as a significant driver of green design
principles for electronics. The move to LED lighting for computer
monitors (over mercury-containing lamps) is an example of an EPEAT
environmental design success story.
Q5. One of the things I noticed you did not address in your testimony
was the patchwork of State laws dealing with electronic waste. If this
framework continues for the next decade, what lines of research would
be most helpful for your members to be able to comply with so many
disparate laws?
A5. The State laws establish requirements for end-of-life management of
certain electronic products--mainly, computers and televisions.
Currently, they are operating as State experiments into which financing
models work the most efficiently and cost effectively. There may be a
time when the industry works with Congress and other stakeholders to
establish a national model. Until that time, the information gathered
at the State level regarding the costs and economies of scale
associated with e-waste management will help inform this issue going
forward.
Q6. Industry often partners with academia to conduct research. Given
the current level of interest in moving the electronics industry in a
``green'' direction, why do you feel that this type of legislation is
needed? Is it just a matter of funding basic research?
A6. The issue is larger than the simple issue of funding basic
research. Electronic products are the engine of our economy and the
need to design them for environmentally appropriate and more cost-of-
life end-of-life management is a societal issue in which all
stakeholders must participate--the product designers, federal, State
and local environmental agencies, the science community, environmental
stakeholders, and recyclers--all stakeholders have a role to play in
constructing sustainable solutions to this issue. It is critical that
we fund the basic science that is at the core of the issue and we need
to the Federal Government to play a central role for credibility and
accountability purposes. Only then will all stakeholders accept the
results and move forward in a balanced and meaningful way.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jeff Omelchuck, Executive Director, Green Electronics
Council, Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT)
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. The discussion draft includes a section that would make funding
available for joint public/private research projects.
Q1a. How would the program in the draft legislation differ from
existing programs at the federal level?
A1a. I am not aware of other federal programs that would create centers
to research issues related to e-waste and it does not appear to me that
e-waste is a focus of much federal research. Perhaps existing programs
could be directed to research the issues identified in the draft bill.
Q1b. How would this funding effort integrate into the existing overall
e-waste strategy?
A1b. I am not aware of an ``existing overall e-waste strategy.'' In
fact, that is a very large part of the problem! I don't believe the
Federal Government has developed a national program or approach to e-
waste recycling. Many municipalities and local agencies that manage
solid waste have banned electronics of various types from their
landfills or incinerators. Thus, in large parts of the U.S. there is no
organized and regulated way for citizens to safely dispose of e-waste.
As a result, our e-waste stays in our closets and basements, is
disposed in municipal systems that are not designed to handle this
material, or is dumped illegally. Several leading electronics
manufacturers and retailers have implemented recycling programs but
they are usually quite limited, at a cost, and collectively they
recover only a few percent of total e-waste. Private sector
``recyclers'' have emerged and some are very good, but much of that
material is exported to countries where it is ``recycled'' using the
worst possible practices.
This absence of a federal program, refusal of municipalities to
handle e-waste, the growing ocean of e-waste in closets and basements,
and the resulting private sector has caused a growing number of states
to develop and implement their own e-waste recycling programs. These
programs are often quite different from each other, and each impacts
producers, municipalities, recyclers, retailers, and consumers
differently. Because of federal inaction we are on a path to create 50
different State-specific programs.
Q2. Many of you discussed what we should do for electronic waste that
will result from products that are currently being sold or are on the
drawing boards. What do we do with all the orphan waste and products
people still have stored in their attics? How will research assist us
in properly disposing of this type of waste?
A2. You are quite right to focus on the ocean of e-waste the public has
in our homes, and that problem will not be solved by changing product
design practices. We simply must develop and implement an effective e-
waste recycling program and we must do it fast--it is the only way to
deal with the growing ocean of legacy e-waste and should be the highest
priority. While certain research may be helpful in implementing an
effective e-waste solution, the lack of scientific research is not
preventing a solution. What is preventing a solution is lack of
political will. That is why I proposed including economic and policy
research in the scope of research included in the bill.
Electronics are fundamentally different from other products, and
certainly from the ones that come to mind when we think about
recycling, like bottles, cans, and newspaper. Whereas the primary
environmental reason to recycle bottles and cans is to reduce the
volume of material in landfills, reduce litter, and recover the
material for re-use, the primary environmental problem with e-waste is
its toxicity. We need to collect e-waste in order to keep it out of
standard municipal landfills and other inappropriate disposal methods
because they contain many toxic materials. The electronics industry has
done a good job over the last several years of reducing the overall
toxicity of electronic products in general, but as you observe, that
doesn't help us much with the ocean of legacy e-waste that was designed
and manufactured before this recent revolution.
The key is collecting e-waste from the public. Once collected there
exists, or can be quickly created, sufficient infrastructure to recycle
it properly. By the way, e-waste recycling can be a relatively labor
intensive process and could be a key source of jobs.
If we develop and implement an effective national e-waste recycling
system we will have solved the clear and present danger of toxics
presented by legacy e-waste, but we will forever be dealing with toxic
e-waste unless we can find a way to change the nature of the product
itself. This is particularly important when we realize that it is
impossible to mine and create toxic materials, manufacture products
with them, use those products in our homes, businesses, and schools,
and collect and recycle them, without putting miners, manufacturers,
users, recyclers and the environment at risk. It is a far better long-
term solution to find a way to change the design of these products over
time so that perhaps, in time, they are not toxic. We will still likely
want to recycle them for other reasons, but we will not be putting
every person in the process at risk.
Q3. How does the co-mingling of different producer's products in the
waste stream impact recycling operations? How can improvements in one
producer's products adversely affect the overall waste stream?
A3. First, let me clarify that there are very good environmental and
economic reasons to co-mingle products from different manufacturers in
the waste stream. It would be very inefficient to create separate
collection and recycling systems for each manufacturer, you'd have to
create parallel systems everywhere, and you'd have the problem of
orphan products. Even if one were to create consortia of producers who
banded together to share a recycling infrastructure, the existence of
multiple consortia is less efficient than one infrastructure, and if
the consortia combined over time we have effectively created one co-
mingled system.
Even though a co-mingled collection system is much more
environmentally and economically efficient, it has its challenges:
1) It presents recyclers with a very wide variety of products
to deal with. Many electronic products contain components that
must be removed from the product in order to be treated
appropriately and it is difficult for recyclers to know the
best way to do that for every product. Even if a producer
created a special button that, when pressed, would release all
the hazardous components, the button would do recyclers little
good if they didn't know it existed or where it was on each
product.
2) The co-mingling of different producer's products makes it
difficult for individual manufacturers to benefit from advances
in design or manufacturing processes they might make that would
make their products more easily, cost effectively, or
environmentally soundly recycled. Thus, the co-mingled nature
of e-waste collection removes the incentive any manufacturer
would have to improve their product.
These challenges are not insurmountable. For example, as part of my
written testimony I provided the report from an EPA-funded research
project that GEC recently completed in which we conceptualize a common
database where producers could put information that recyclers need in
order to effectively recycle their products.
The second issue of creating an incentive for producers to make
their products more recyclable over time could be addressed by creating
a way to evaluate specific products for ``recyclability'' and creating
a differential fee to cover their recycling, so the recycling fee would
be less for products that were designed to be more easily recycled. As
in most current e-waste recycling systems, this fee could be levied at
the time the product is sold when its identity is known and the fee can
be easily collected, either visibly from the consumer, invisibly from
the consumer, or from the manufacturer or retailer, or some
combination. This would provide a mechanism to optimize design of the
product and its recycling system over time.
To answer your last question, there are several examples of how one
producer making what appear to be improvements can actually adversely
affect the overall waste stream, and several examples of how apparent
advances simply make no difference:
The use of bio-based and biodegradable plastics would
appear to reduce petroleum use and reduce waste at end-of-life.
However, bio-based plastics are generally not compatible with
recycling practices used for petro plastics and actually
contaminate those recyclate streams. So unless bio-based
plastics can be effectively identified and separated during
recycling, and there is an industrial compost facility
available, they inhibit plastics recycling. The same situation
exists for wood or bamboo electronics enclosures.
A few manufacturers have employed novel disassembly
methods, particularly to allow removal of hazardous materials
like batteries or lamps. However, unless recyclers know about
them, how to use them, and have the tools (if any), they
usually end up dismantling the product with a hammer, often
breaking the parts that the manufacturer intended to protect,
for instance, CFL lamps that contain mercury.
Different plastic resins must be recycled in
different processes and plastics are difficult to separate by
type, so it would be very helpful to reduce the number of
different plastics that are used in electronics. However, one
or a few manufacturers doing that wouldn't help much. It would
need to be industry-wide.
Most producers mark plastic parts with codes that
identify which type of plastic resin the part is made from to
facilitate separation and recycling. However, some of the most
sophisticated e-waste recycling systems sort plastics by other
characteristics (specific gravity, etc.) in automated systems
so the marks are useless (though not harmful).
Q4. How does the EPEAT program compare to the Energy Star program in
consumer awareness and purchasing decisions?
A4. ENERGY STAR has perhaps the highest consumer awareness of any eco-
label, exceeding 75 percent awareness in the U.S. public. ENERGY STAR
has come to be trusted by millions of consumers as a reliable way to
identify energy efficient products that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and save money.
EPEAT was designed primarily for use by institutional purchasers,
organizations that buy products on purchase contracts. EPEAT was
launched in 2006 and is now required by more than $60 billion worth of
purchase contracts, including those of the Federal Government. EPEAT
covers a full range of product environmental characteristics, including
energy efficiency (in fact, ENERGY STAR is EPEAT's primary energy
criterion). We do not track consumer awareness of EPEAT but it is
certainly very low. We are beginning to make plans to increase EPEAT's
consumer awareness.
EPEAT and ENERGY STAR have a long history of cooperation and are
currently exploring ways to work together to help consumers identify
electronics that meet a broad range of ``green'' criteria.
Q5. In your testimony you mention a Design for Environment, End-of-
Life registry that is a critical source of recycling information for
many electronic products. Would the Pollution Prevention Resource
Exchange be an appropriate place to warehouse this information?
A5. Perhaps. We would welcome the opportunity to explore that idea
further.
Q6. How can changes in software design reduce e-waste?
A6. Many believe that software ``advances'' are one of the leading
causes of PC hardware obsolescence. Think of your last several
computers. How many met their end-of-life because they physically
broke? I'll bet that most became obsolete because they would no longer
run the applications software and operating systems that were the only
options available, or succumbed to a virus or other software problem
that became too maddening to fix, or ``got too slow.'' Of course, the
hardware doesn't actually slow down over time. These performance
degradations are caused by software changes. It seems likely that the
majority of PC obsolescence is caused by software. However, it appears
that relatively little research has been done on this question.
We would like to study this issue further and would welcome the
participation of government, industry, academic, ENGO, and other
interested parties who can contribute.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Willie Cade, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, PC
Rebuilders and Recyclers, Home of the Computers for Schools
Program
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. The discussion draft includes a section that would make funding
available for joint public/private research projects.
Q1a. How would the program in the draft legislation differ from
existing programs at the federal level?
A1a. The program described in the draft legislation would be managed
using sound data collection and management systems. Research,
education, and technical assistance priorities would be developed
through careful examination and consideration of the data collected
through this program. This approach would ensure that resources are
allocated such that maximum benefits are derived from the monetary
resources invested.
Current methods for tracking the origin, use and management of e-
waste are extremely limited. EPA currently estimates the amount of
electronic products sold, stored, recycled, disposed of, and exported
in the U.S. using a series of assumptions and estimates based on market
research data for sales and data from electronics collection programs
along with some government statistics for sales. These data are usually
not complete or current and are developed only for purposes of deriving
national estimates. Additionally, the information is woefully
inadequate for making strategic decisions regarding feedstock, market
and system management. Current EPA e-waste management efforts focus on:
1. number and weight of products that become obsolete
2. amount of electronic products that are recycled or disposed
of
3. amount of electronic equipment that is stock-piled
4. collection rates of current electronics recycling programs,
and
5. export of electronic material
The development of a more sustainable e-waste management system is
contingent on the quality of data available for decision-making
purposes. Consequently, development of a more complete, accurate and
useful data collection and management system is paramount to
establishing a more sustainable e-waste management system. Examples of
additional data needed to support an effective system include the
following:
1. Where the waste originated/how far it traveled
2. User information (personal, commercial, industrial, etc.)
3. Manufacturer name
4. Model numbers
5. Serial numbers
6. Product type (TV, monitor, CPU, etc.)
7. Product age
8. Product service life
9. Reason for discarding (e.g., obsolete, damaged, software
issues, etc.)
This information could be combined with other pertinent databases
associated with product information (e.g., model numbers could be
cross-referenced with specific parts lists) and demographic information
(e.g., census, Thomas Registry, etc.) to create a comprehensive
database that would be extremely valuable for users interested both in
the quality of the products they produce, availability of reusable
components, and methods for remanufacturing, reusing and recycling
them.
Q1b. How would this funding effort integrate into the existing overall
e-waste strategy?
A1b. U.S. EPA has already performed cursory analysis of the problems
and opportunities associated with electronic wastes. They have also
developed some very basic assistance materials for helping individuals
and organizations better manage electronic waste. This program would
build on these efforts by providing the data collection, research,
education, and technical assistance means necessary to fully develop
and implement a more sustainable system for producing and managing
electronic devices. It is envisioned that such a system would minimize
waste, pollution, and safety hazards while maximizing opportunities for
remanufacturing and recycling.
Q2. Many of you discussed what we should do for electronic waste that
will result from products that are currently being sold or are on the
drawing board. What do we do with all the orphan waste and products
people still have stored in their attics? How will research assist us
in properly disposing of this type of electronic waste?
A2. People are keeping these systems in their attics or basements for
an estimated three to four years. This is a waste of the resources
invested in this equipment. Research will help us to understand the
reasons that people store this equipment so long. Our current guess is
that people are afraid to get rid of this equipment for fear of their
personal information being misused or that they would be contributing
to a growing environmental problem. Understanding these problems and
addressing the needs will help use get equipment sooner and allow us
greater reuse opportunities. Better identification of the items and
materials that comprise the current waste stream will better enable us
too safely and cost effectively process this equipment.
Q3. What components are best suited for reuse? Do enough of these
components exist to create a stable supply of sufficient quantity?
Would high reuse and recycling greater standardization of component
circuitry? What effects would the use of reclaimed components have on
industry warrantees and hardware support?
A3. Solid state components are best suited for reuse. They also happen
to be the items that require the most resources for their initial
production. I have been working around computers for the last 15 years
and last month was the first time I ever saw a solid state component
physically fail. Yes there is more than enough equipment to create a
stable supply. Component circuitry is highly standardized by
generation, but the generational turn over is very rapid. While there
may be 1,000 different computer model on the market at any give moment
there may be only 100 different components. I believe that reuse of
reclaimed components would have no effect on industry warrantees and
hardware support. My program offers a three year hardware warranty on
our three- to four-year-old refurbished computers.
Q4. How can changes in software design reduce e-waste?
A4. To date most software design has been about increasing
functionality. As software design matures more emphasis will be placed
on efficiency. More efficient software will require less powerful
hardware and allow people to keep using their hardware longer. This can
be seen in the beta testing of the new Microsoft Windows 7 operating
system.
Q5. Some computers are too old to be refurbished for general computing
task. Are there customers for components from these computers? What is
the quality of the hardware in these very old systems and what uses can
they be put to?
A5. The quality of these ``very old'' systems is very good. Proper
quality control testing can identify week parts and eliminate them from
production. We are just now learning the different ways to use this
equipment. My company is investigating ways that homeowners and
businesses can use e-waste to help reduce their energy consumption. The
smart grid will provide a vast amount of opportunities to monitor and
control energy use that our current ``dumb'' electrical grid does not.
Refurbishing computers educates, creates local jobs, is cost
effective and helps the environment. I believe that we could provide
refurbished computers for the upcoming census at a significantly
reduced cost per unit with out sacrificing any needed capabilities or
quality. In fact using refurbished computers would more effectively
stimulate the U.S. economy because all of the money spent on
refurbishment is for U.S. jobs where as 80 percent to 90 percent of the
money spent on new equipment is for overseas manufacturing jobs.
Q6. What is your definition of ``toxic'' and ``hazardous materials''?
Is the goal of complete elimination of these materials realistic?
A6. My definitions of ``toxic'' and ``hazardous materials'' are
materials that can cause harm to people and the environment. I think it
is important to distinguish between equipment that contain toxic or
hazardous materials but do not pose any risk of exposure during the use
of the equipment. The most concerning issue around electronic equipment
is its manufacturing and disposal. Modern methods of major manufactures
are fundamentally safe. Real concern occurs when informal process such
as burning are used. I believe that we need to research safely
processing this equipment rather than eliminating substances of concern
from the equipment because I believe it is unrealistic to eliminate
them.
Q7. Your testimony mentions that computers from one manufacture are
older that the stream as a whole. Have other recyclers seen the same
phenomena and if so are there specific lessons to be drawn from this
manufacture's designs? Additionally, this manufacturer has been
criticized for creating products that are particularly difficult to
disassemble and recycle. Are there trade-offs between longer use and
recyclability?
A7. I know of no other Refurbisher/Recycler that has quantitative data
on this issue. There are very valuable lessons to be learned from these
differences. I believe one of the major benefits to this kind of
research is that it will increase the product quality for the industry
as a whole. I do not believe that there are inherent trade-offs between
longer use and recyclability rather I think they go hand-in-hand.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment briefly on electronic
waste, or ``e-waste.'' I appreciate Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member
Ralph Hall allowing me to be a part of this hearing on e-waste, a
subject I've been involved with since I was first elected to Congress.
I also applaud the Chairman and the Committee's continued work and
interest on this critical issue of our age.
As you know already, electronic products are becoming smaller and
lighter, but they also are creating an ever-growing environmental and
waste disposal problem. That's because it's often cheaper and more
convenient to buy a new PC or cell phone than to upgrade an old one.
Today, the average lifespan of a computer is only two years and
Americans are disposing of 3,000 tons of computers each day. These
discarded items, more often than not, wind up in the landfills of
developing countries, where the waste becomes not just an environmental
issue but a moral one as well. A recent GAO report, ``E-Waste: EPA
Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger
Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation,'' found that most e-
waste exported from the U.S. is dismantled under unsafe conditions,
using methods like open-air incineration and acid baths to extract
component metals.
The legislative language you consider today, including grant
programs to spur studies into making electronic equipment easier to
recycle on the front end and training our nation's engineers in ``green
design,'' will lay a critical piece of the foundation for comprehensive
e-waste legislation in the future. Truly an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure; if obsolete computers and other such items can
be diverted from the waste stream at the outset, half the battle will
have already been won.
Thank you again for bringing much needed attention to this issue
and to allow us to gather expert testimony on the problem of e-waste. I
look forward to working with you further to enact a comprehensive plan
to reduce e-waste.