The Prices of Progress: Computers and Solid Waste

Patrick H. Zaepfel

The booming Internet economy creates a seemingly unquenchable demand for the latest computer equipment. More complex software drives demand for more computing power and more power beckons programmers to utilize fully available technology. Technological advances have consistently met Moore’s Law, with a doubling of computer speed every 18 months since 1980. All of this means that PCs, servers, and other hardware have a life of about 18 months as IS departments seek to remain compatible.

According to the popular press, the disposal of approximately 12 million computers a year results from this rapid rate of technological progress. The National Safety Council estimates that in the US there will be five hundred million obsolete PCs by the year 2007. Desktop computers contain an impressive melange of substances, from barium and beryllium to yttrium and zinc. With up to five pounds of lead in each cathode ray tube ("CRT"), the monitors alone from such a volume of obsolete machines could contribute a daunting 2.5 billion pounds of lead to the nation’s landfills. Even putting aside issues related to toxicity, such a volume leads to questions regarding the adequacy of the nation’s landfill capacity.

EPA, trade groups, and state regulators have taken notice of this new flow of potential refuse, and have begun to analyze its impact and to seek appropriate policy and economic incentives for the recycling and reuse of retired computer components. For example, one of the six sectors of industry examined under the Clinton Administration’s Common Sense Initiative ("CSI") Commission addressed the Computer and Electronics industry. The subcommittee created to examine this sector concluded that the RCRA regulations created a disincentive for the recycling and reclamation of CRTs.

One of the continuing CSI projects is the promulgation of a regulation to alleviate the burdens on recycling CRTs and a notice of proposed rulemaking has been slated for a July 2000 publication. See 65 Fed. Reg. 23554 (April 24, 2000) (Unified Regulatory Agenda). EPA has also attempted to streamline the regulatory process for computers themselves by excluding certain shredded circuit boards that are being "reclaimed" from the definition of "solid waste" and therefore excluding them from RCRA regulation. 63 Fed. Reg. 28556 (May 26, 1998); 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(14). EPA has also stated that it has no intent to pursue the otherwise safe recycling of such circuit boards that are whole, rather than shredded.

A number of states (and municipalities) have initiated programs for increasing the recycling of consumer electronics, often with financial or technical support from EPA, trade associations or manufacturers. These states include Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In some cases, these programs are being initiated through regulatory and legislative enactments and in others they originate in executive efforts and coordination. Either way, the focus is typically waste minimization coupled with facilitating the flow of obsolete computers to companies that reuse or recycle electronic equipment. One of the more interesting avenues for the reuse of CRTs, for instance, is the shipment of older monitors abroad for use by populations less interested in seeking the technological cutting edge.

The question for U.S. policy-makers is how to adapt these initiatives for optimum efficiency in the convenience-seeking American culture. Some observers predict that the U.S. will move to a cradle-to-grave, closed loop obligation for manufacturers of computer, electronic and other equipment. Three startling directions issued by the European Commission are shaking up industry. One would require auto makers to pay for the recycling of all new automobiles. A second would require the creation of collection and recycling systems to be co-managed by manufacturers and the individual E.U. member states. The third would require the use of less harmful substitutes for certain popular heavy metals (including lead and mercury) and flame retardant materials in the manufacture of electronics. Even if these proposals do not emerge from the European Parliament, they represent a new adaptation of recycling buyback programs in force in the U.S. and Europe, on a much grander scale. If it means that American consumers can empty their attics of their dust-covered TRS-80’s, Apple II’s and IBM clones, it may well work here.

Patrick Zaepfel is a SCSW Regional Coordinator and an associate with LeBoeuf Lamb Greene & MacRae in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.