19 E-Waste: Definition, sources, classification, collection, segregation, treatment and disposal

Dr. Logakanthi S

 Objectives:

After completing this module, you should be able

• To know what e-waste includes.
• To know constituents of e-waste and their sources.
• To know the challenges in managing e-waste.
• To know the present method of its treatment.
• To know the present management plans in India to tackle this challenge

2.      Description

World cities generate about 1.3 billion tonnes of solid waste per year and this is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025 (The World Bank, 2012). According to the World Bank report of 2012, municipal solid waste generation rates are directly proportional to economic development and urbanization. Many new streams of waste are contributing to this steadily increasing stream of solid waste and one such new and important stream of waste is electronic waste. Electronic waste is also known as e-waste, or waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), or end-of-life (EOL) electronics.

2.1. What is e-waste?

Electronic waste or ‘e-waste’ in general refers to electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) that has ceased to be of any value to its owners. European Union WEEE Directive 2002/96 (EU, 2002) which, is one of the earliest legislation in the world to have recognised this specialised waste stream, defines EEE as equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents and fields and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1000 volts for alternating current and 1500 volts for direct current. WEEE is defined as EEE which is waste (‘waste’ means any substance or object which the holder disposes of) including all components, subassemblies and consumables which are part of the product at the time of discarding (EU 2002). According to the E-waste (management) rules 2016, Government of India, e-waste’ means electrical and electronic equipment, whole or in part discarded as waste by the consumer or bulk consumer as well as rejects from manufacturing, refurbishment and repair processes (MoEFCC, GOI, 2016).

E-waste encompasses a broad and growing range of electronic devices ranging from large household devices such as refrigerators, air conditioners, cell phones, personal stereos, and consumer electronics to computers, which have been discarded by their users (Puckett and Smith, 2002). Although e-waste broadly refers to electrical and electronic equipment that have lost valuable use to the current user what encompasses e-waste that requires to be managed varies according to the regional and national legislations. For example, while EU WEEE recognizes 10 categories of e-waste that ranges from large household equipment to toys, sports and medical equipment. The ‘E- waste (management) rules 2016’ of India recognizes two broad categories viz. IT and telecommunication equipment and consumer electrical and electronics including fluorescent and mercury containing lamps (MoEFCC, 2016). Despite the wide and varied definition on what constitutes e-waste, globally it has been acknowledged that this is one of the fastest growing streams of waste that needs immediate attention.

This e-waste contains a diverse range of materials. Most studies examine five categories of materials in e-waste viz. ferrous metals, non-ferrous metals, glass, plastics and others. Iron and steel account for almost half the total weight of WEEE, followed by plastics (21% of weight), and non-ferrous metals including precious metals (13%, of weight of which copper accounts for nearly 7%). It also contains around 2.7% of pollutants (Widmer et al., 2005) (Figure 1). Nearly 60% of materials like iron, steel, glass and plastic along with recoverable valuable metals like gold in e-waste are recyclable.

2.2.     Source of e-waste

Electrical and electronic equipment include a large gamut of products ranging from small household equipment, to toys, to large equipment like refrigerators, washing machines, IT equipment, mobiles, office equipment, medical equipment etc. It is these equipment that become e-waste at the end of their useful life. So the sources of e-waste are also very large ranging from individual users, to households, to organizations. Therefore, the generators of e-waste are classified broadly as individual (which also include households) and bulk consumers.

Figure 1. Typical material fractions in WEEE

Classification of e-waste is important for compiling e-waste data regarding its generation and management. With regards to classification of e-waste it varies from country to country and so there is no generic system. The United Nations University (UNU) classification also known as UNU-keys (UNU, 2015) that classifies e-waste based on products of similar function, comparable material composition (in terms of hazardous substances and valuable materials) average weight, end-of life characteristics and life span distribution is regarded as most comprehensive classification. It has 54 categories of e-waste that are grouped under ten primary categories. In India e-waste is categorized into two groups, which is listed in Table 1 below (MoEFCC, 2016).

Table 1. Classification of e-waste in India

3.      The challenge of e-waste management

Presence of nearly 60% of recyclable material in e-waste has made the global, transboundary trade in e-waste from the developed countries to the developing countries a profitable business. Despite opposition from NGOs world over, this global trade in e-waste between the developed and developing countries has been increasing annually (Kahhat et al., 2008). The recyclability of e-waste together with the presence of potentially toxic pollutants poses a waste management challenge in the developing countries, where the resources in these wastes are extracted using archaic methods that cause damage to the workers and the environment (Liu et al., 2006). This e-waste that is potentially damaging if mismanaged is growing in quantity globally.

The number of appliances put onto the market every year is increasing both in post-industrialized and industrializing countries, thereby contributing to the increased generation of e-waste globally (UNEP & UNU, 2009). E-waste contains both toxic and valuable materials. On the one hand the presence of toxic substances makes it environmentally challenging to handle it, while the presence of valuable substance encourages an international trade in e-waste. The growing quantity of e-waste, together with its toxic nature has made the management of e-waste a global challenge (Puckett and Smith, 2002).

In the developed countries, the increasing quantity of e-waste is attributed to higher cost of repair of electronic equipment together with the decreasing cost of equipment, which makes it economically viable to replace rather than repair. Planned obsolescence practiced by EEE (electrical and electronic equipment) producers (Slade, 2006) has further enhanced the consumer’s desire to replace products. Planned obsolescence is a marketing strategy that creates long-term sales volume by decreasing the useful life of technology, thereby increasing the rate of purchase of new technology. This planned obsolescence of consumer products leads to more frequent purchases not out of personal choice but as a consequence of the products’ purposefully limited durability, thus increasing the rate of consumption and ultimately the waste generation (Lodziack, 2000). Most often the e-waste thus generated in developed countries ends up in landfills or is incinerated. Puckett and Smith (2002) reported that the e-waste produced in the US ended in landfills along with other municipal solid waste. Similar behaviour was also observed in the European Union until a decade back (Schenkman, 2002).

With the decreased availability of landfill space and increased recognition of the toxic nature of e-waste, regulations have been promulgated to manage them. The promulgation of regulations has made it expensive to recycle e-waste in most developed countries and hence they have chosen the alternate cheaper route of managing this e-waste by exporting it to the developing countries of the South. It has been reported that the United States e-waste recycling industry once declared that around 80% of the e-waste they received was exported into Asia, and around 90% of it went to China (BAN, 2002).

In the developing countries the increasing quantity of e-waste is not only due to the economic growth and related change in consumer behaviour, but also due to the import of these wastes from developed countries for recycling (Liu, 2006). Developing countries tend to view e-waste as a resource for income generation, as opposed to ‘waste’ owing to the availability of large- scale unskilled labour in the informal sector that is involved in the dismantling and recovery process of valuable metals present in them (Sinha-Khetriwala, 2004). This large informal sector, engaged in resource recovery from e-waste, does so by adopting environmentally unsound practices (Widmer et al., 2005). The nature of e-waste, along with the lack of proper regulation to handle it in developing countries, together with it being looked upon as a resource for income generation, makes e-waste management a challenging issue in these countries.

4. Management of e-waste

Understanding the nature of waste plays an important role in the management of waste. With regards to e-waste the source of e-waste is in itself very vast compared to the other wastes whose sources are more specific (eg. Municipal solid waste, hospital waste etc.). Also the presence of both valuable recyclable material and toxic material together makes it essential to have a combination of management techniques that is unlike other wastes.

World over the management of e-waste is based on the principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR). “EPR is defined as an environmental protection strategy that makes the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life cycle of the product and especially for the take back, recycling and final disposal of the product” (Lindhqvist, 2000). It was Lindhqvist, who first proposed this environmental policy strategy to manage e-waste, covering five parameters to be considered when designing an EPR based e-waste management system, viz. legal regulation, system coverage, system financing, producer responsibility, compliance. He studied e-waste management in different countries through this framework and showed how these parameters were closely interlinked and play an important role in the effective management of WEEE.

By shifting the responsibility of financial and infrastructure burdens to tackle the waste from the municipality to the producers, EPR internalizes environmental externalities to a large extent. This linking of the manufacture phase of the product with its disposal by EPR encourages the manufacturers to go for better product design to enable easy upgrading and recycling according to Tojo (2005).

The Swiss ORDEE (The Return, the Taking Back and the Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment) 1998 has been the pioneering legislation for e-waste management. The European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE-Directive 2002/96/EC) which promotes collection and recycling of e-waste and the Restriction on Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment RoHS – Directive (2002/95/EC 2002b) are two important legislation pertaining to e-waste management in the EU countries. Many countries in Asia like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan also have their own national regulation to tackle the challenge of managing e-waste (Ongondo et al., 2011). The adoption of EPR based approach to manage e-waste varies geographically and ranges from fully voluntary (Switzerland) to mandatory (EU) systems. Also, this policy approach in the developed countries has used market instruments like advanced recycling fees (ARF), deposit refund schemes, etc., to not only secure financial aid to operate such schemes, but also to enroll the participation of consumers. Despite such measures the dumping of e-waste from developed countries to developing countries continues.

Lack of regulation in developing countries that handle large volumes of e-waste imports is a serious challenge to its management. Many developing countries like China and India have now implemented e-waste legislation in line with the EU WEEE directive (Hicks et al. 2005; Arora et al. 2008). Researchers like (Lin et al., 2001; Manomaivibool, 2009; Meng Die Li et al., 2012) have recommended the need to mandate financial and collection responsibilities apart from legal responsibilities on producers in developing countries EPR policy for e-waste management to ensure proper e-waste treatment.

In developing countries e-waste is still potentially regarded to have value and is not disposed of for free. Therefore, market based instruments like ARF, tax credits, and deposit refund schemes that could be leveraged for participation of stakeholders in e-waste management in developing countries have been proposed by researchers while analysing the context in these countries (Lin et al., 2001; Yu et al., 2010; Wath et al., 2010; Wath et al., 2011; Meng Die Li et al., 2012). Also in the developing countries there is a large group of participants in the informal sector that make a living by resource extraction from this waste through primitive backyard recycling who cannot be ignored in an e-waste management system (Lin et al., 2001; Sinha-Khetriwala et al., 2005; Osibanjo and Nnorom, 2007). The integration of the informal sector with formal e-waste recyclers by involving them only in collection, for effective e-waste recycling in developing countries where informal recycling of e-waste is high has been recommended by researchers like Yu et al. (2010).

5.  E-waste treatment

Since e-waste is a mixture of valuable material that is recoverable and recyclable with toxic substance that needs to be safely disposed its treatment is also complex. E-waste requires both labour-intensive manual segregation along with capital intensive technical processes for the separation of toxic waste (Vasudev and Parthasarathy, 2007). Handling e-waste by beginning with manual dismantling has been recommended as the best starting process for its treatment. This prevents mixing up the different constituent materials which otherwise reduces its value and increases the challenges in recovering material (Chatterjee and Kumar, 2009). The dismantled e-waste is separated into glass, copper, steel, aluminium, plastic, printed circuit boards, etc. The total content of printed circuit board in e-waste is 3-5% by weight, while metals, plastic, and glass, constitute the remaining 95-97% (Bernardes et al., 1997; Chatterjee and Kumar, 2009). The hazardous components like capacitors and batteries, CRT screens, CFC gases, light bulbs and batteries are also separated and removed at this stage.

Once the critical toxic compounds are removed the e-waste is subjected to mechanical process. This mechanical processing which is normally a large scale operation enables increase of recyclable materials in a dedicated fraction and also helps to further separate hazardous materials. Typical components of a mechanical processing plant are crushing units, shredders, magnetic- and eddy-current- and air-separators. The gas emissions are filtered and effluents are treated to minimize environmental impact. High-pressure compaction and cement solidification can also be used for the treatment of printed wire board (PWBs) into safe forms for co-disposing with MSW.

The final step in e-waste recycling is refining. This is an energy and capital-intensive process. Most of the fractions obtained here are refined to be sold as secondary raw materials. During the refining process, attention is paid to metals, glass and plastic. At the end of refining and after extraction of valuable fractions the residue, which is usually non-usable and toxic, is disposed in specially designed disposal facilities for hazardous waste.

6.  E-waste management in India

India is the fifth biggest producer of e-waste in the world, discarding 1.7 million tonnes (Mt) of electronic and electrical equipment in 2014 (UN report, 2015). The e-waste stream in the country is rising three times faster than the municipal waste stream (Agarwal, 2009). Government institutions and the public and private sectors have been identified as the major contributors of approximately 70% of the amount (EMPA 2007). Manufacturers of components and assemblers and individual households are additional major sources of e-waste generation, although it is difficult to capture exact amounts and numbers of these contributors (EMPA, 2007). The problem of e-waste is further enhanced in the country by the import of waste electronic equipment under the guise of donation or reuse (GIZ-MAIT, 2007). E-waste recycling is largely limited to recycling of ICT equipment like computers, mobiles, etc., and included little household equipment such as refrigerators, washing machines, etc. (ibid.).

Of the total e-waste generated in the country, a large proportion is refurbished and sold in the secondary market, and so less than 5% is available for recycling (GIZ-MAIT, 2007). A study conducted by ELCINA (2009), assessed the e-waste trade value chain in India and identified the various stakeholders. These stakeholders include, the ‘generators’ of e-waste namely, the consumers of electronic equipment, the manufacturers and the retailers of electronic equipment and the importers of used equipment; the ‘aggregators’ who are engaged in collection and stockpiling activity which includes the second-hand and refurbishment market and the scrap collectors and; the ‘segregators’ who are engaged in dismantling and recycling. The informal sector becomes predominant in the last two stages namely aggregation and segregation, although recycling is also done by the formal recyclers. The distinction between household and business consumers of electronic equipment was also made in this assessment. According to this study, while the household consumers disposed material for reuse among friends and relatives, or sold it in second hand market, the business users mostly (48%) returned it for part exchange during procurement of new material, and selling to recycling companies was very low (2%).

E-waste management in India has been largely left to the highly organized informal sector, which does the collection, segregation, dismantling and finally recycling until recently (Raghupathy et al., 2010). The informal sector engaged in waste recycling comprises of urban poor and rural migrants (Mitchell, 2008). The flourishing of the informal recycling sector has been attributed to the long history and presence of the informal waste sector (popularly known as ‘Kabadiwalas’), combined with the lack of specific regulation to tackle this until recently. The informal sector handles recycling of nearly 95% of the total e-waste that is recycled (GIZ-MAIT 2007). The recycling by this informal sector is done in a primitive way in backyards of businesses, which causes damage to health of these workers along with environmental damage and loss of valuable material due to their inefficient methods. Although studies on environmental and toxicological impact of improper treatment of e-waste is well recognised (Yang et al., 2004; Wong et al., 2007; Sepúlveda et al., 2010) not much data is available about its impact on recycling workers in India. The informal recycling happens in urban slums and outskirts and most workers in this informal sector are children who are prone to respiratory problems (Roche, 2010). Delhi has been recognized as the major hub for informal recycling in the country (GIZ-MAIT, 2007). The informal sector in Delhi alone employs 25,000 people (Jain, 2006).

Waste minimization in industries can be done by adopting the following 4 methods.

• inventory management,
• production-process modification,
• volume reduction, recovery and reuse
• Inventory management:

A good control over the materials used in the manufacturing process and raw materials in stock can reduce the e waste. Material-purchase review and inventory tracking can help in waste reduction.

• Replacement of hazardous constituents with non-hazardous materials
• Production-process modification
• Changes in the production process reduces waste generation. It is done by three different ways

Improved operating and maintenance procedures: the existing operational procedures must be reviewed to improve efficiency. Optimize the use of raw materials in the production process and having control over leaks and spills can help in improving efficiency. Proper training, good inspection, good operating procedures are also a key to waste minimization

Material change: replace alternative non-hazardous materials with hazardous material. For example, a circuit board manufacturer can replace solvent-based product with water-based flux and simultaneously replace solvent vapor degreaser with detergent parts washer.

Process-equipment modification: Minor changes or adjustment in the process will reduce waste generation. A separate waste reduction technique or equipment can also be added. Modification can be simple change in the process or in the equipment. For example, electronic manufacturing which involves coating a product, such as electroplating or painting, chemicals are used to strip off coating from rejected products so that they can be recoated. These chemicals, which can include acids, caustics, cyanides etc are often a hazardous waste and must be properly managed. By reducing the number of parts that have to be reworked, the quantity of waste can be significantly reduced (Ramachandran and Varghese 2004).

Volume reduction

It is a method by which hazardous portion of a waste is separated from non-hazardous portion. Volume reduction decreases the disposal cost. The volume reduction is achieved by through source segregation and waste concentration. Segregation of wastes is an economical means of waste reduction as they will help in treatment of different types of metal waste separately so that the metal can be recovered. Concentration of a waste stream is done by gravity and vacuum filtration, ultra filtration, reverse osmosis, freeze vaporization. This might increase the longevity of the product. Eg. an electronic component manufacturer can use compaction equipments to reduce volume of waste cathode ray-tube.

Recovery and reuse

• This minimizes or eliminates the waste disposal costs It also reduces the raw material
• Provides income from a recovered waste.
• Physical and chemical techniques used to reclaim waste material include electrolysis, reverse osmosis, condensation, electrolytic recovery, filtration, centrifugation. For example, a printed-circuit board manufacturer can use electrolytic recovery to reclaim metals from copper and tin-lead plating bath.

Acknowledging the serious impact of improper management of e-waste to the environment the Government of India has come out with an EPR based e-waste (management) rules 2016. Some of the salient features of this regulation are presented in box 1.

E-waste Regulation in India

E-waste is regarded as a hazardous waste mostly because of the presence of hazardous substances in it which cause serious environmental damage when not managed properly. Despite having a separate rule to manage hazardous waste in India (Hazardous waste management, handling and transboundary movement rule 2008) recognising the unique nature of e-waste a separate rule to manage this waste was enacted in 2012 (E-waste management and handling rules, 2011). This rule has further been amended taking into consideration the existing e-waste management operations and is now recognised as e-waste (management) rules 2016, that comes into force from October 2016.

Some of the salient features of the revised e-waste rule are (MoEFCC, 2016)

1. It is based on the principle of EPR, where the producer of the equipment has been mandated to channelize the e-waste generated after the use of their equipment and manage it in an environmentally sound manner. The producer can do this by implementing take back system or setting up of collection centres or both by having agreed arrangements with authorized dismantler or recycler. They could do this either individually or collectively through a Producer Responsibility Organization
2. It recognizes and defines each of the stakeholder who are involved with production of electronic equipment and management of the waste generated at the end of its useful life namely the producer, manufacturer, consumer, bulk consumer, collection centres, dealers, e-retailers, refurbisher, dismantler and recycler. The responsibilities of each of the stakeholder are also explicit in the rule.
3. Specific targets have been set for the producers with expectation of managing 30% of the waste generated during the first two years of implementation of the rule. This target has been gradually increased so that by the seventh year of implementation of this rule nearly 70% of the e-waste generated is properly managed.
4. The  penalty  of  non-compliance  of  meeting  the  target  includes  cancellation  of  EPR authorization which would result in the producer not being able to put products in market until EPR authorization is regranted.
5. Apart for having a planned system for managing e-waste the producers are also required to reduce the amount of hazardous substances in their equipment. The equipment should not contain Lead, Mercury, Hexavalent Chromium, polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers beyond a maximum concentration value of 0.1% by weight and Cadmium of 0.01% by weight in homogenous materials.

7.      Summary

This lecture familiarizes about:

• E-waste which is a new stream of waste
• The constituents and sources of e-waste
• The problems with its management
• The various global treatment option for this waste
• Management of this waste in India

References

• Ramachandra T.V. and Saira Varghese K (2004) ‘Environmentally sound options for e-wastes management’, Envis Journal of Human Settlements, March 2004.