بررسی سیستم های مدیریت پسماندهای الکترونیکی در ایالات متحده Exploring e-waste management systems in the United States

Abstract Quantities of end-of-life electronics (or e-waste) around the world keep growing. More than 1.36 million metric tons of e-waste were discarded, mainly in landfills, in the U.S. in 2005, and e-waste is projected to grow in the next few years. This paper explores issues relating to planning future e-waste regulation and management systems in the U.S. It begins by reviewing the existing U.S. recycling systems in the U.S. to establish the importance of developing public responses. Other countries and regions around the world have already legislated and implemented electronic takeback and recycling systems. To establish the context of existing experience, e-waste management systems in the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are explored. The paper then discusses what specific conditions are expected to influence the acceptability and implementation in the U.S. A key consideration is the cultural imperative in the U.S. for market-driven solutions that enable competition. Given this context, a solution is proposed that is designed to ensure a proper end-of-life option while at the same time establishing a competitivemarket for reuse and recycling services. The solution, termed e-Market for Returned Deposit, begins with a deposit paid by consumers to sellers at the time of purchase, electronically registered and tracked via a radio-frequency identification device (RFID) placed on the product. At end-of-life, consumers consult an Internet-enabled market in which firms compete to receive the deposit by offering consumers variable degrees of return on the deposit. After collection of the computer by the selected firm, the cyberinfrastructure utilizes the RFID to transfer the deposit to the winning firm when recycled. If the firm chooses to refurbish or resell the computer in lieu of recycling, the transfer is deferred until true end-of-life processing. Finally the paper discusses the domestic and international consequences of the implementation of the proposed design. ۱٫ Introduction Electronic waste, commonly known as e-waste, waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), or end-of-life (EOL) electronics, denotes electronic and electrical equipment, including all components, sub-assemblies, and consumables, deemed obsolete or unwanted by a user (Bhuie et al., 2004; Cairns, 2005). However, the word can be misleading because it characterizes used electronics categorically as waste, although the flows include some equipment that will be reused via secondary markets. Functionality of information and communication technology (ICT) is growing rapidly, and from a sustainability viewpoint, there are clearly social benefits to ICT’s technological evolution that contribute to its continuity. As technology advances, people purchase increasingly more electronic devices (such as computers, entertainment electronics, mobile phones and others) even though they are not essential. Meanwhile, the significant increase in e-waste has not corresponded to growth in the processes related to collection, recycle and reuse of these electronic devices. For example, it is estimated that 9% of the electronics sold between 1980 and 2004 in the United States (U.S.), or 180 million units, are still in storage awaiting disposal; TVs and desktop PCs account for 34–۵۲% and 24% (by weight), respectively (U.S. EPA, 2007a). Also, in 2005, the U.S. discarded 1.36–۱٫۷۲ million metric tons of e-waste, mainly into landfills, and only 0.31–۰٫۳۴ million metric tons were recycled (U.S. EPA, 2007a). Consequently, the typical life cycle of an electronic product is a linear progression betweenmanufacturing, use, storage and waste disposal. For these reasons, it is time to design new approaches and systems for e-waste collection, recycle and reuse in the U.S. Ideally, such approaches will reduce environmental impacts by increasing reuse of equipment and parts, increasing the recyclability of materials found in e-waste, and developing a society that learns to balance rapid technological evolution with responsible product/material management. Compared with the current system in which electronic products end up in storage or landfills after use, the framework proposed herein closes the material flow cycle for electronic products by introducing collectors, recyclers and reusers into the system. This modification allows e-waste to be collected and reused or recycled. Consequently, this paper explores issues related to planning future e-waste regulations and management systems in the U.S. It first explores the U.S. recycling systems for different products, taking as an example the ‘bottle bill’ and the end-of-life vehicle system. It then reviews what is known about the e-waste situation in the U.S. to establish the importance of developing public response. Other countries and regions around the world (e.g., European Union, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan) have already legislated and implemented electronic recycling systems. To establish the context of existing experience, e-waste management systems in the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are reviewed. Based on the above reviews, the paper then considers what specific conditions influence acceptability and implementation in the U.S. A key consideration is the cultural imperative in the U.S. for market-driven solutions that enable competition. Given this context, we propose a form of depositrefund system designed to ensure proper end-of-life while at the same time establishing a competitive market for reuse and recycling services. The proposal is termed the e-Market for Returned Deposit. Finally, the paper discusses the domestic and international consequences of the implementation of the proposed design. ۲٫ U.S. recycling systems In 2006, the U.S. recycled 32.5% of its generated municipal solid waste (MSW) (U.S. EPA, 2006). However, recycling rates vary between communities depending on their waste collection options, recycling materials targeted, regulatory approaches and other factors. For example, 11 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon and Vermont) employ a beverage container deposit-refund system. A beverage container recycling program, commonly referred to as a “bottle bill,” is one important example of a successful deposit-refund system. The “bottle bill” is a system that encourages consumers to return beverage containers by providing a refund on the deposit, and this system is considered by many stakeholders as a successful recycling program that should be expanded as a federal policy (U.S. GAO, 2006) The eleven states employing this system have achieved higher recycling rates and have recycled more beverage containers than the other 39 states combined (DOC, 2007). The refund value of the container (usually 5 or 10 cents) provides a monetary incentive to return the container for recycling. California, for example, reported a 60% recycling rate for its beverage containers between January and December 2006; during that year, over 13 billion containers were recycled, which was 814 million more than the year prior (DOC, 2007). In addition, possibly the best example of a free market-driven end-of-life option is the automobile market, which is driven by no regulations, but only by the economics of material recovery from car bodies. There are about 15 million end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) generated in the U.S. every year. Currently, 95% of cars in the U.S. are sent to existing recycling facilities for dismantling and shredding at the end of their service lives (Daniels, 2003). The management of ELVs involves dismantling, shredding, and recycling of parts and materials. The parts that have reasonable value are removed by the dismantlers, and then reconditioned and reused. The shredders group the remaining materials into ferrous and non-ferrous metals, which are all sent to recyclers. In 2001, 6000–۷۰۰۰ dismantlers were estimated in the U.S. (Staudinger and Keoleian, 2001). In addition, in 2006, around 75% of the materials found in vehicles were profitably recycled by the reuse or shredding industry (Jody and Daniels, 2006).