U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

47–543PS 2009

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

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

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

PETE OLSON, Texas

(III)

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

Page

IV

Mr. Willie Cade, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, PC Rebuilders and

Recyclers, Home of the Computers for Schools Program—Continued

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

(1)

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.

2

3

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

4

1 EPA Fact Sheet: management of Electronic Waste in the U.S., http://www.epa.gov/

epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-08.pdf 2The Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (ROHS) Directive, adopted buy the European

Union in 2003. 3 E. Williams (2002), ‘‘The 1.7 Kg Microchip.’’

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.

• 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 upfront 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.

• 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 evaluVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

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/

ating 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.

• 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 ewaste 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

6

phone recycling. The EPA has also supported a Design for the Environment Program and Electronics Products Assessment Tool (EPEAT).

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.

7

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.

8

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 highvalue 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

9

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.

10

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. Sixtythree 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

11

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

12

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

13

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 endof-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.’’

14

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-forprofit 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

15

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

16

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.

17

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 endof-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 MercuryContaining 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.

18

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.

19

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 GeorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
20

gia 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

21

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.

22

1Smart 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.

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 lowercarbon 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.

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.

23

2 Example adapted from Schipper, Irene and de Haan, Esther. ‘‘CSR Issues in the ICT Hardware Manufacturing Sector’’ SOMO ICT Sector Report. September 2005. 3Schipper, Irene and de Haan, Esther. ‘‘CSR Issues in the ICT Hardware Manufacturing Sector’’ SOMO ICT Sector Report. September 2005. 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 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.

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

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

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.

24

7WEEE and Hazardous Waste. A report produced for DEFRA. March 2004.

8 Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.govjepaoswerjoswjconservejpluginjindex.htm 9Leung 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.

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

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 ewaste 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

year8 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. Ewaste 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.

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

25

10 Ibid. 11 National Safety Council, ‘‘Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report: Recycling of Selected Electronic Products in the United States,’’ May 1999. 12Smart 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in the information age. The Climate Group,

on behalf of the Global eSustainability Initiative. 2008.

chronic health conditions ranging from damage to the nervous system, and changes

to blood composition, lung, kidney, and liver functioning.10

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.

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 environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
26

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. 14The Associated Press. ‘‘IBM to Recycle Chips for Solar Panels.’’ The International Herald

Tribune. 30 October 2007. <http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/30/business/ibm.php> 15De la Pena, N. ‘‘Sifting the Garbage for a Green Polymer.’’ The New York Times. 19 June

2007. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/science/19poly.html> 16Frazer, L. ‘‘Chicken Electronics—A Technology Plucked from Waste.’’ Environ. Health

Perspect. 112(10):A564–A567, July 2004.

mental 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:

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.

Æ Reduce the use of hazards wherever possible (i.e., replacing toxic

flame retardants, plasticizers, mercury, lead, and arsenic—containing substances, etc.).

Æ Design new materials, plastics, composites and alloys that increase

performance while reducing toxicity.

Æ Ensure that the new materials are designed such that included as

part of functional performance are things like non-persistence, nonbioaccumulation, 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.

Æ Incorporate take-back schemes

Æ Reduce material diversity

Æ Improve the ease of product disassembly

Æ Incorporate renewable/biodegradable materials wherever possible

and advisable

• Think broadly about possible material synergies outside of the industry.

Æ Can waste products be sold as feedstock to other industries? Example: IBM is reported to have recently begun selling its informationscoured silicon chips as a feedstock for solar panels.14

Æ Can other industries’ wastes be purchased as feedstock? 15 Example:

University of Delaware Professor Richard Wool’s chicken-featherbased 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

3. Optimize resource use at the design stage (for energy, materials, and

time)

27

17Williams, 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

• 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.

Æ Therefore, product lifetimes should be increased, but provisions

should be made for adaptability and upgradeability.

Æ 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.

Æ Short-term

• Up-cycling historic wastes—

Æ Research on the transformation or destruction of current toxics.

Æ 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.

Æ 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.

Æ Research new material joining options such as fasteners, welds, adhesives

Æ Examine the potential for the use of new materials developed

through bio-based and molecular self-assembly techniques

• Improve the recycling infrastructure

Æ Educate consumers about electronic waste

Æ Facilitate the collection of electronic products

• Extend useful product life

Æ Determine the factors that lead to technological failure

• Conduct basic research on materials and life cycle impacts

Æ 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. EffecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

18Williams, 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. 20Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, ‘‘Fourth Annual Computer Report Card,’’ January 9, 2003;

http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/2002report.htm

tive 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

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.

Æ Mid-term

• Begin to phase out toxics

• Investigate new materials and improve existing functionalities

Æ Develop new display technologies

Æ 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.

29

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.

Æ Long-term

• Material basis of computers

Æ Non-depleting

Æ Non-rare, scarce, toxic metals

Æ Non-persistent, non-accumulating, non-toxic materials

• Focus on new dematerialized product conceptions

Æ Nanoscale materials and components

Æ Molecular self-assembly

Æ Biomimetic devices

• Strive for holistic applications of green design

Æ Dematerialize—use fewer devices with less overall material to provide the same services

Æ 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

30

21From recycling doc—Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Federal Register comments in Appendix VII.

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.

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.

31

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

32

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:]

33

1 ‘‘Doing Moore Using Less,’’ Semiconductor Industry Association, available at http://www.siaonline.org 2http://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.)

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

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.

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 plugin electric vehicles by substantially extending their range and performance. ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
34

3See 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.’’)

puter 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.

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

35

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

36

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 manufacVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
37

ture 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 disproportionVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
38

1 E. Williams (2002), ‘‘The 1.7 Kg Microchip.’’

2 Including the EU WEEE system, China’s system, and the systems of the U.S. States that

have implemented e-waste recycling programs.

ately 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.

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.

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 ewaste 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

39

3 Rifer et al. (2009), ‘‘Closing the Loop: Electronics Design to Enhance Re-use/Recycling

Value.’’ (See Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.)

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 EPA3 shows that ewaste 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.

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.

40

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

41

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.

42

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 endof-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 inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
43

formed 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

44

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

45

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

46

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.

47

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.

48

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 nextgeneration 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

49

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

50

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

51

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.

52

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

53

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

54

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. Luja ́n, a new Member of our committee, is recognized.

Mr. LUJA ́ N. 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.

55

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. Luja ́n, 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. LUJA ́ N. 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.

56

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n.

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 ewaste 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 difVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
57

ferent 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 storVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
58

age, 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

59

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.]

(61)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

62

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 leadacid 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

63

1 E. Williams, Energy Intensity of Computer Manufacturing: Hybrid Assessment Combining

Process and Economic Input-Output Methods, Envir. Sci. Technol. 38 (22):6166–6174.

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

64

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 enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:25 Jun 30, 2009 Jkt 047543 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\021109\47543 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
65

vironmental 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.

66

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.

67

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?

68

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.

69

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 Statespecific 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 ewaste 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, ewaste recycling can be a relatively labor intensive process and could be a key source

of jobs.

70

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),

71

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.

72

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

73

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

74

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 tradeoffs between longer use and recyclability rather I think they go hand-in-hand.

(75)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

76

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MIKE THOMPSON (D–CA)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment briefly on electronic waste, or ‘‘ewaste.’’ 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.

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122