LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS (National Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)

E -Waste: A Growing Global Environmental Problem

Abstract

In present time e-wastes are creating a massive global environmental and health

problem. Rapid economic growth, coupled with urbanization and growing demand

for consumer goods, has increased both the consumption of electrical and

electronic equipment (EEE) and the production of waste electrical and electronic

equipment (WEEE), which can be a source of hazardous wastes that pose a risk to

the environment and to sustainable economic growth. Disposal of E-wastes is an

unembellished problem faced by many regions across the globe. Electronic wastes

that are land filled produces contaminated leachates which eventually pollute the

groundwater. The main aim of this study was to analyze the problem of E-Waste which

are growing globally in present time and comparative study of existing legislations of

various major countries involved in production and consumption of E-Waste.

1. Introduction In present time e-wastes are creating a massive global environmental and health

problem. The electronic industry is the worlds largest and fastest growing

manufacturing industry [2]. In recent decades, the use of electronic and electrical

devices has increased significantly, leading to rapidly rising amounts of waste electrical

and electronic equipment (WEEE), often also called e-waste, throughout the world. If

we study closely e-waste is one of the fastest growing pollution problems. With the

increase in consumption of electronic goods and also with their usage pattern the

generation of e-waste also increases [1]. E-waste contains valuable materials such as

aluminum, copper, gold, palladium and silver, it also contains harmful substances like

cadmium, lead and mercury. In the absence of suitable techniques and protective

measures, recycling e-waste can result in toxic emissions to the air, water and soil and

pose a serious health and environmental hazards. Rapid economic growth, coupled

with urbanization and growing demand for consumer goods, has increased both

the consumption of EEE and the production of WEEE, which can be a source of

hazardous wastes that pose a risk to the environment and to sustainable economic

growth [3]. Electronic Waste is simply known as e-waste. Electronic waste is term

used to describe old, end of life electronic appliances, such as- computer VCRs, DVD

players, mobile phones, fax machines laptops, mp3 players etc. which have been

disposed by their original users. E-waste contains hazardous constituent that may

negatively impact the environment and affect human health if not properly managed.

Disposal of e-waste is an being global environmental and public health issue, as this

waste has become the most rapidly growing segment of the normal municipal waste

stream in the world. E-waste contains hazardous constituent that may negatively impact

the environment and affect human health if not properly managed. Due to lack of

adequate infrastructure to manage wastes safely, these wastes are buried, burnt in the

open air or dumped into surface water bodies. E-waste poses the most direct health

risks when it degrades and the internal chemicals are released to the environment [4].

Such is not the case. According to a recent report by the BBC

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24994209), e-waste pollution is

causing severe health concerns for millions of people around the world, mostly in

the developing nations of Africa, Europe and Asia. Approximately 23 percent of deaths

in these nations are linked to pollution and other environmental impacts. The report

also concluded that more than 200 million people worldwide are at risk of exposure to

toxic waste.

2. Definition of Ewaste E-waste is a highly complex waste stream as it contains both very scarce and valuable

as well as very toxic components. One of the major issues related to E-waste is that

there is no standard definition of WEEE/E-waste. A number of countries have come

out with their own definitions, interpretation and usage of the term E-

waste/WEEE. The most widely accepted definition and description of WEEE/ E-

waste is as per the European Union directive. The Directive 2002/96/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and

electronic equipment (WEEE) covers all electrical and electronic equipment used

by consumers. For the purposes of this Directive, following definitions are applied:

1. Electrical and electronic equipment or EEE means equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work

properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such

currents and fields falling under the categories set out in Annex IA and

designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1000 Volt for

alternating current and 1500 Volt for direct current;

2. Waste electrical and electronic equipment or WEEE means electrical or electronic equipment which is waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of

Directive 75/442/ EEC, including all components, subassemblies and

consumables which are part of the product at the time of discarding.

Categories of electrical and electronic equipment covered by this Directive

within ANNEX IA are as follows:

1. Large household appliances

2. Small household appliances

3. IT and telecommunications equipment

4. Consumer equipment

5. Lighting equipment

6. Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial

tools)

7. Toys, leisure and sports equipment

8. Medical devices (with the exception of all implanted and infected products)

9. Monitoring and control instruments

10. Automatic dispensers. [5]

3. E-Waste concerns and challenge in Indian scenario While the overall challenges regarding management of e-waste in India are the same

faced by other developing economies, the vast geographical diversity and economic

disparities between regions often make e-waste management challenges unique in

India. A few of the key challenges faced are:

1. Accurate figures not available for rapidly increasing e-waste volumesgenerated

domestically and by imports.

2. Low level of awareness among manufacturers and consumers of the hazards of

incorrect e-waste disposal.

3. No accurate estimates of the quantity of e-waste generated and recycled available in

India.

4. Major portion of e-waste is processed by the informal (unorganised) sector using

rudimentary techniques such as acid leaching and open-air burning, which results in

severe environmental damage.

5. e-waste workers have little or no knowledge of toxins in e-waste and are exposed to

health hazards.

6. High-risk backyard recycling operations impact vulnerable social groups like

women, children and immigrant laborers.

7. Inefficient recycling process results in substantial losses of material value and

resources.

8. Cherry-picking by recyclers who recover precious metals (gold, platinum, silver,

copper, etc) and improperly dispose of the rest, posing environmental hazards.

9. No specific legislation for dealing with e-waste at present [6].

4. Sources of E-Waste Some of major sources of E-waste include [10]

Importers

Producers/ manufacturers

Retailers(business/ government/ others)

Consumers(individuals households, businesses, government)

Traders

Scrap dealers

Dissemblers/ dismantlers

Smelters

Recyclers

The involvement of various sectors could be observed as the sources of

generation of E-waste. The general flow of E-waste across different sectors

Informal Sector

Formal Sector

are tried to represent by the following flow chart.[10]

4.1 Indian perspective

Manufacturer: According to surveys conducted about 50% of PCs which are sold all

over the country are basically from the secondary market and are reassembled on the

old components. The rest of market share cover by MNCs (30%) and Indian brands

(20%) [11]. Besides manufacturers are major contributors of e-waste. The waste

consists of defective IC chips, motherboards, CRTs and other peripheral items

produced during the production process. It also includes defective PCs under guarantee

procured from consumers as replacement items.

Consumer: About 22% of junk computers are generated from Indian household [12].

The routine process of getting rid of obsolete computers include exchanging from

retailers or pass on the same to friends or relatives. The business sector accounts for

78% of all installed PC's in India [12]. The junk computers from business sector are

often sold during auction or sometimes donated to educational $institutes or charitable

institutions for reuse.

Import of e-waste: Import of e-waste is legally prohibited no doubt the reports prove

that lots of e-waste is imported from abroad. The ministry of environment has no data

related to import of e-waste but above says that 100% control of the borders is not

possible.

5. Environment concerns & health hazards E- Waste is an important global environmental and health issue. Electronic and

Electrical Equipment are composed of an enormous amount of components. Many of

them fall under the hazardous category. Majority of these components contain toxic

substances that have adverse impacts on human health and the environment if

not handled properly. Often, these hazards arise due to the improper recycling and

disposal processes that are in practice in most of the developing countries including

India. Such offensive practices can have serious aftermath for those staying in

proximity to the places where E-waste is recycled or burnt[14].

Disposal of E-wastes is an unembellished problem faced by many regions across

the globe. Electronic wastes that are land filled produces contaminated leachates which

eventually pollute the groundwater. Acids and sludge obtained from melting computer

chips, if disposed on the ground causes acidification of soil. For example, Guiyu, Hong

Kong a flourishing area of illegal E-waste recycling, is facing acute water shortages due

to the contamination of water resources. This is due to disposal of recycling wastes

such as acids, sludge etc. in rivers.

Mercury leaches when certain electronic devices, such as circuit breakers are destroyed.

The same is true for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from condensers. When

brominated flame retardant plastic or cadmium containing plastics are landfilled, both

polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) and cadmium may leach into the soil and

groundwater. It has been found that significant amounts of lead ion are dissolved from

broken lead containing glass, such as the cone glass of cathode ray tubes, gets mixed

with acid waters and are a common occurrence in landfills [14].

In addition, uncontrolled fires may arise at landfills and this could be a frequent

occurrence in many countries. When exposed to fire, metals and other chemical

substances, such as the extremely toxic dioxins and furans (TCDD tetrachloro

dibenzo-dioxin, PCDDs-polychlorinated dibenzodioxins. PBDDs-polybrominated

dibenzo-dioxin and PCDFs-poly chlorinated dibenzo furans) from halogenated flame

retardant products can be emitted[13]. The most dangerous form of burning E-waste

is the open-air burning of plastics in order to recover copper and other metals.

The toxic fall-out from open air burning affects the local environment and

broader global air currents, depositing highly toxic byproducts in many places

throughout the world. Incineration of E-waste possesses another threat. It can emit

toxic fumes and gases, thereby polluting the surrounding air. Moreover, shipping of

hazardous waste to developing countries is a major alarm. It happens because of cheap

labour and lack of environmental legislations in developing countries [14].

Roughly 40 million metric tons of electronic waste (e- waste) are produced

globally each year, and about 13 percent of that weight is recycled mostly in

developing countries. About 9 million tons of this wastediscarded televisions,

computers, cell phones, and other electronicsare produced by the European

Union, according to the United Nations Environment Programme ( UNEP) . And

UNEP notes that this estimate of waste is likely too low[15].

Informal recycling markets in China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and the Philippines

handle anywhere from 50 percent to 80 percent of this e- waste, often shredding,

burning, and dismantling the products in "back yards. " Emissions from these

recycling practices are damaging human health and the environment[16].

Developing countries with rapidly growing economies handle e- waste from

developed countries, and from their own internal consumers. Currently, an

estimated 70 percent of e- waste handled in India is from other nations, but the

UNEP estimates that between 2007 and 2020, domestic television e- waste will

double, computer e- waste will increase five times, and cell phones 18 times.

The informal sectors recycling practices magnify health risks. For example, primary

and secondary exposure to toxic metals, such as lead, results mainly from open- air

burning used to retrieve valuable components such as gold. Combustion from burning

e- waste creates fine particulate matter, which is linked to pulmonary and

cardiovascular disease [17]. While the health implications of e- waste are difficult

to isolate due to the informal working conditions, poverty, and poor sanitation,

several studies in Guiyu, a city in southeastern China, offer insight. Guiyu is

known as the largest e- waste recycling site in the world, and the city' s residents

exhibit substantial digestive, neurological, respiratory, and bone problems. For

example, 80 percent of Guiyus children experience respiratory ailments, and are

especially at risk of lead poisoning [18].

6. Global Significance of EWaste The Basel Action Network (BAN) which works for prevention of globalisation of toxic

chemicals has stated in a report that 50 to 80 per cent of e-waste collected by the US is

exported to India, China, Pakistan, Taiwan and a number of African countries. This is

done because cheaper labour is available for recycling in these countries. And in the

US, export of e-waste is legal. E-waste recycling and disposal in China, India and

Pakistan are highly polluting. Of late, China has banned import of e-waste. Export of e-

waste by the US is seen as lack of responsibility on the part of Federal Government,

electronics industry, consumers, recyclers and local governments towards viable and

sustainable options for disposal of e-waste. In India, recycling of e-waste is almost

entirely left to the informal sector, which does not have adequate means to handle either

the increasing quantities or certain processes, leading to intolerable risk for human

health and the environment [19].

The Bamako Convention or the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into

Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes was adopted

by the twelve nations of the Organization of African Unity at Bamako, Mali in January,

1991, and came into force in March, 1999 [20]. The Convention aims to protect human

health and environment from dangers posed by hazardous wastes by reducing their

generation to a minimum in terms of quantity and/or hazardous potential. All Parties

are obliged to prohibit the import of all hazardous wastes, for any reason, into Africa

from non-Contracting Parties (article 4.1). The categories of wastes listed in Annex I to

the Bamako Convention, a waste possessing any of the characteristics listed in Annex II

to the Bamako Convention, as well as any waste considered to be hazardous by the

domestic laws of either the state of import, export, or transit are considered hazardous

wastes for the purposes of the Bamako Convention. It is clear from the provisions of

the Bamako Convention that the dumping of radioactive wastes, industrial wastes,

sewage and sewage sludge is prohibited. The Bamako Convention places the duty on

the Parties to monitor their respective waterways to ensure that no dumping occurs.

Each State Party has to report annually to the Secretariat [20].

The Rotterdam Convention calls on exporters of hazardous chemicals to use proper

labeling, include directions on safe handling, and inform purchasers about known

restrictions or bans. The Convention requires each Party to notify the Secretariat,

provided jointly by the FAO and UNEP, when taking a domestic regulatory action to

ban or severely restrict a chemical [21].

As a legislative initiative to solve the problem of huge amounts of toxic e-waste, a

Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and

electronic equipment, namely 2002/95/EC, commonly referred to as the Restriction of

Hazardous Substances Directive or RoHS was adopted in February 2003 by the

European Union. The RoHS Directive came into force with effect from 1 July 2006,

and is required to be enforced and become law in each member state. The Directive

restricts the use of six hazardous materials in the manufacture of various types of

electronic and electrical equipment [22].

6.1. E-waste legislation and enforcement in China, EU and US

China

Electronic waste in China has gained world-wide attention as a serious environmental

issue. Guiyu in Guangdong Province is the location of the largest electronic waste site

on earth. Chinese laws are primarily concerned with eliminating the import of e-waste.

China has ratified the Basel Convention as well as the Basel Ban Amendment,

officially banning the import of e-waste. In October, 2008, the Chinese State Council

also approved a draft regulation on the management of electronic waste with the

objective of promoting the continued use of resources through recycling and

monitoring the end-of-life treatment of electronics. Under the new regulations, the

consumer is required to recycle electronic products. It also requires the recycling of

unnecessary materials discarded in the manufacturing process [23].

The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) in China, officially known as the

Administrative Measure on the Control of Pollution Caused by Electronic Information

Products is a Chinese Government regulation to control certain materials, including

lead. It was jointly promulgated by the seven Government Departments and

administrations of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) in February, 2006 and

became effective from 1 March, 2007[23].

According to Article 1 of the Administrative Measure, it was formulated on the basis

of the legal and administrative laws of the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on

Promotion of Clean Protection, the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on the

Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste, etc., in order to

control and reduce environmental pollution caused by the discarded electronic

information products, promote manufacture and sale of low pollution electronic

information products, and protect environment and human health[24].

All items shipped to China now have to be marked as to whether the items contained in

the box are compliant or non-compliant. The Electronic Information Products (EIP)

logo or other label is used to mark parts and assemblies that do not contain acceptable

amounts of substances identified by the regulations, and those that are environmentally

safe. Units which contain hazardous substances are marked with the EIP logo

including an Environment Friendly Use Period (EFUP) value in years. EFUP is the

period of time before any of the RoHS directions restricted substances are likely to

leak out, causing possible harm to health and the environment [24].

There are currently six substances considered environmentally hazardous by the

Chinese RoHS Directive (Article 3 of Chapter 1), namely lead, mercury, cadmium,

hexavalen chromium, poly-brominated biphenyls, poly-brominated diphenyl ethers and

other toxic or hazardous substances or elements set by the state [24].

Hong Kongs Waste Disposal Ordinance bans the import of batteries and cathode rays.

Currently, there is no legislation in place to bar the entry of other electronics into the

ports of Hong Kong.

European Union (EU)

The EU has been passing comprehensive and progressive e-waste legislation that is

partly comparable to the new draft rules in India ever since the mid-1990s. This

legislation not only controls e-waste flows as stipulated in the Waste Shipment

Regulation, but also governs the disposal and collection of WEEE (WEEE Directive)

as well as the restriction of hazardous substances in electronic and electrical equipment

(RoHS Directive). The export of e-waste is governed by Council Regulation No.

259/93, the so-called Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR), which was passed in 1993

and amended in 2007. Its main purpose is to control and regulate the supervision of

waste shipments in order to prevent environmentally harmful shipments to countries

without adequate provisions to deal with those wastes. According to the WSR, no EU

member state is allowed to export e-waste classified as hazardous to non-OECD

countries, including India (ECT/RWM, 2008: 14-15; IMPEL, 2004: 7-9). As a

substantial number of e-waste components do not fall under the WSRs definition of

hazardous, however, these components may be exported to non-OECD countries under

special provisions. These provisions depend primarily on the importing countrys

acceptance of such waste. The export of non-waste used electrical and electronic

equipment (EEE) to non-OECD countries is allowed in principle (ECTS/RWM, 2008:

15; Huisman et al., 2007: 195). In addition to export regulations, the EU has passed e-

waste legislation targeted at changing product designs and increasing recycling rates of

discarded WEEE (Sander & Schilling, 2010: 21). The WEEE (Waste Electrical and

Electronic Equipment) and RoHS (Restriction of the use of certain hazardous

substances) Directives have been in force since 2003. While the RoHS Directive

addresses the beginning of the EEE life cycle by attempting to eliminate hazardous

substances such as mercury, lead and fire retardants in domestically produced or

imported electrical and electronic products, the WEEE Directive concentrates on the

end-of-life stages of EEE. The main objectives of the latter are to reduce the amount of

EEE disposed of in landfills and to increase recycling and recovery of e-waste.

Member states are required to set up collection and treatment schemes where

consumers can return their used e-waste free of charge. The Directive also intends to

encourage product designs that facilitate the recycling, repair, disassembly and reuse of

WEEE by introducing the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EPR

allocates the financial responsibility for collecting and managing WEEE in line with

the Directive to the producers (Hester & Harrison, 2009: 6). Individual Producer

Responsibility (IPR) applies for the management of new products put on the market.

For historical waste, i.e. products put on the market before 13 August 2005, the

financial responsibility is divided among producers in proportion to their market share

of a specific type of equipment (WEEE Directive, Article 8). The rationale behind

producer responsibility is the polluter pays principle, which intends to include the

costs of disposal and treatment in a products price, thus reflecting the products

environmental effects (Nnorom & Osibanjo, 2008: 845).

Despite the wide-ranging legislation, only a third of the WEEE arising in the EU is

officially reported as being treated in line with the WEEE Directive. Part of the

remaining two thirds, which have been collected but not reported, is suspected of being

treated in the EU without appropriate environmental care or of being shipped illegally

to treatment sites outside the EU that do not meet European environmental and health

standards. Some of the e-waste may also be dumped in developing countries (EC,

2008a: 2). Although the current data situation regarding e-waste shipments out of the

EU is not sufficient to determine the exact quantities of e-waste being exported legally

and illegally, some general tendencies can still be identified [25].

Only a small fraction of the total amount of WEEE generated in the EU is legally

exported to non-EU countries, although the quantities of e-waste actually shipped are

believed to be much higher (ETC/RWM, 2008: 50-54). Both our interview partners

and studies conducted indicate that a substantial amount of WEEE is still exported

illegally despite EU legislation proscribing the export of e-waste to non-OECD

countries (EC, 2008b: 5; Zoeteman et al., 2009: 29-30). The occurrence of illegal

exports to non-OECD countries shows that both the WSR and the WEEE Directive

have enforcement deficits. A brief overview of the main factors behind this situation is

presented below.

Although the complex regulatory system for waste shipment set up by the WSR has a

significant impact on the export of WEEE, various legal and implementation issues

hamper the legislations overall effectiveness. These include a lack of capacity on the

part of the authorities involved, for instance to pursue inspections more proactively;

gaps in national law for enforcement in case of non-compliance; and legal grey areas in

the WSR concerning the classification problems regarding waste, particularly the

difficult distinction between functioning second-hand and waste products, among other

things (IMPEL, 2006: 22, 28). The lack of criteria for distinguishing new, used and

waste products is one of the main reasons for illegal exports. Various cases have been

detected in which used EEE was declared to be second-hand and functioning, when in

fact it was not working and in part considered hazardous (ibid.: 49; Huisman et al.,

2007: 195).

The WEEE Directive influences both the management and albeit rather indirectly

the export of e-waste. The Directive does so by setting collection targets for recycling

e-waste and trying to promote reuse of WEEE while diminishing its generation.

However, there are indications that the Directives existing requirements for treating

the separately collected WEEE have not been effective (EC, 2008c: 2). The interviews

conducted even pointed to an increase in illegal e-waste exports as a result of the

WEEE Directive a situation quite contrary to its actual intention. This situation

results mainly from the fact that the high and ambitious environmental standards

stipulated in the Directive involve additional costs of treatment, likely fuelling e-waste

trade with non-OECD countries where the costs are much lower (EC, 2008b: 8). In an

effort to address the Directives insufficient effectiveness and efficiency, the European

Commission proposed a revision of it in 2008. Several modifications currently under

discussion could possibly help to reduce illegal e-waste exports to non-OECD

countries. These include setting a higher mandatory collection target for e-waste,

establishing minimum monitoring requirements for WEEE shipments and introducing

a legally binding provision for the distinction between new, used or waste products to

tackle the false labelling of WEEE as used EEE (EC, 2008a: 7; Sander & Schilling,

2010: 22).

The example of the EU indicates that clear legal provisions, including those for

monitoring and enforcement, the need to raise awareness of existing regulations among

all relevant stakeholders and the recognition of e-wastes potentially hazardous nature

in conjunction with a more sustainable use and reuse of EEE are necessary for

effective handling of e-waste [26].

United States(US)

Unlike the EU, the US Congress has failed to pass federal legislation specifically

targeting either the national management or the export of WEEE. As a result, only two

federal regulations address e-waste and its export: the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)s

CRT Rule. RCRA proscribes a cradle to grave tracking system for hazardous waste.

The law requires individuals or companies handling, disposing of or shipping

hazardous waste to obtain permits from the EPA and/or get permission from importing

countries (EPA 2009b; GAO, 2008: 32). However, RCRA contains two main

loopholes that result in a failure to regulate most e-waste. Firstly, RCRA regulates

WEEE disposal only when the electronics in question fall under the acts definition of

hazard-ous waste. When disposed of in landfills in the US, most e-waste does not meet

this definition; when dismantled abroad, however, exposure to toxins increases (GAO,

2008: 32; Puckett et al., 2002). Additionally, EPA has created exemptions for the

export of certain hazardous items (EPA, 2010b; ETBC, 2008: 6). Secondly, households

and businesses producing up to 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month may dispose

of that waste in landfills within the US (EPA, 2010b). A good deal of the small amount

of WEEE that falls under the hazardous-waste definition thus remains unregulated

(GAO, 2009: 3-5). An unknown quantity of this waste may be shipped abroad. In sum,

RCRA does little to regulate either the disposal of municipal e-waste within the United

States or its export. Only items containing cathode ray tubes, or CRTs, presently fall

under RCRAs definition of hazardous waste. Consequently, the EPA has created a

rule regulating the disposal of these items, which are primarily televisions and

computer monitors. If e-waste exporters wish to ship CRTs abroad for recycling, they

are required to inform EPA of shipments planned for a period of 12 months or less; the

EPA then contacts the importing country and obtains written permission for the

shipments (EPA, 2009a). The CRT rule currently in effect also contains important

loopholes that weaken its already limited regulation of US e-waste exports. Firstly, the

rule only regulates the export of unsorted CRT glass and CRTs destined for recycling.

Exporters of intact CRTs intended for reuse merely need to submit a one-time

notification of export to the EPA and maintain records that prove that the CRTs will be

reused. Notifying the importing country is not necessary (EPA, 2009a). Secondly, the

EPA does not restrict the export of unused, intact CRTs intended for reuse or recycling

or that of processed CRT glass (ibid.).

Thus, as the federal government does not consider most e-waste hazardous, American

recyclers may ship the electronics abroad with virtually no restriction. The federal

CRT rule limits exports, but only of a small fraction of the total e-waste stream.

Furthermore, a GAO (2008) study turned up significant evidence that the EPA has

failed to implement and enforce the CRT rule. Many recyclers either directly violate

the rule by not notifying the EPA of their exports or seek to circumvent it by labelling

shipments as destined for reuse, regardless of the electronics actual level of

functionality. They have received few sanctions (ibid; GAO, 2005a: 14-15) [27]. In the

absence of federal legislation regulating most types of e-waste disposal, an increasing

number of US states have begun to develop their own e-waste regulation and

management systems. 23 states have passed EPR legislation that restricts the disposal

of certain types of e-waste, but the strength and scope of the provisions vary greatly

from state to state. The other 27 states have no restrictions on e-waste disposal.

Although state programmes have had some success in increasing recycling, the states

are also encountering enforcement problems due to their limited powers and the vast

scope of WEEE. Additionally, their power to enforce their legislation ends at their

borders (NREC, 2006: 15). As a result, the five states whose laws seek to restrict or

impose conditions on the international export of e-waste can do very little to enforce

these provisions. Indeed, the patchwork of state laws has indirectly resulted in an

increase in e-waste exports for two reasons. Firstly, exports are growing because the

state laws mandating recycling are working. The percentage of e-waste collected for

recycling has indeed increased in recent years (EPA 2008: 23; Wagner 2009; GAO

2005b: 15). Since recyclers export the large majority of that WEEE, increasing

amounts of waste and a higher percentage of recycled products almost certainly

indicate higher absolute and per capita export volumes(GAO 2008: 42; Tonetti 2007:

6). Secondly, the absence of federal e-waste laws strengthens the existing economic

incentive to export e-waste. American recyclers and manufacturers send their e-waste

abroad because recyclers in developing and transition countries can extract the

precious materials more cheaply (Puckett et al., 2002). In the absence of a national

collection system, electronics recyclers operating in the United States have difficulty

obtaining enough e-waste to operate their expensive machinery at an economy of scale.

As in the EU, the environmentally sound treatment of e-waste incurs high costs,

thereby encouraging illegal trade. Furthermore, with few regulations attempting to

influence or encourage changes in product designs, electronic products become

obsolete quickly and remain difficult and expensive to disassemble in both the US and

the EU (GAO, 2005a: 9) As a result, the state e-waste laws actually make WEEE

management and recycling in the US more economically inefficient. Each states

regulations differ from the others and sometimes even conflict with them. This

regulatory patchwork has significantly increased the costs to both e-waste recyclers

and electronics manufacturers (NCER, 2006; Daly, 2006; GAO, 2005b: 17-18). One

study found that complying with and enforcing the 20 overlapping and conflicting state

regulations costs government, recyclers and electronics manufacturers an extra

US$125 million per year (NCER, 2006). Several voluntary programmes run by

manufacturers exist, but these have not been very successful at increasing the recycling

volume, especially in states without any e-waste regulation (Wagner, 2009: 3017;

Daly, 2006; Dempsey, 2009). The large amount of e-waste currently stockpiled in US

businesses and households and being disposed of in landfills represents a tremendous

economic opportunity for the US recycling industry. However, most electronics

manufacturers and recyclers agree that this potential cannot be realised without a

federal e-waste programme (NCER, 2006; Daly, 2006).

6.2. Magnitude of the Problem with respect to the Indian scenario

Existing Legislation[30]

Electronic waste is being partly covered under the broad regulatory framework related

to hazardous waste in India. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of

India, is the nodal agency at the central level for policy, planning, promoting and

coordinating the environmental programs. The Environment (Protection) Act 1986,

umbrella legislation covers hazardous waste and provides broad guidelines to address

it.

The policy statement on the abatement of pollution issued by the government of India

in 1992 reiterated its commitment towards waste minimization and control of

hazardous wastes. India is a signatory to Basel Convention on the control of trans-

boundary movement of Hazardous Wastes and Disposal. India ratified and acceded to

it in 1992. The ratification of this convention obliges India to address the problem of

trans-boundary movement and disposal of dangerous hazardous wastes through

international cooperation.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has issued the following

notifications related to hazardous waste:

1. Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989/ 2000/ 2002

2. MoEF Guidelines for Management and Handling of Hazardous Wastes, 1991

3. Guidelines for Safe Road Transport of Hazardous Chemicals, 1995

4. The Public Liability Act, 1991

5. Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001

6. The National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995

7. Bio-Medical Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998

8. Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and 2002

9. The Recycled Plastic Manufacture and Usage (Amendment) Rules 2003

The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 were introduced

under

Sections 6, 8, and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 (referred to as

HWM Rules, 1989). The HWM Rules, 1989 provide for the control of generation,

collection, treatment, transport, import, storage and disposal of wastes listed in the

schedule annexed to these rules. The rules are implemented through the various

Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees in the states and union

territories. There were a few inherent limitations to the implementation of the HWM

Rules, 1989, which led to amendments to these Rules being introduced in 2000, 2002

and 2008, widening the definition of hazardous waste by incorporating e-waste and

harmonizing the list of hazardous waste materials with that of the Basel Convention.

Besides these rules, in 1991, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New

Delhi issued guidelines for management and handling of hazardous wastes for (a)

generators of waste, (b) transport of hazardous waste, and (c) owners/operators of

hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facilities. These guidelines also

established mechanisms for the development of a reporting system for the movement

of hazardous waste (the manifest system) and for the first time, established procedures

for closure and post-closure requirements for landfills.

In addition to these direct rules dealing with issues of hazardous waste management,

the

Government has moved to enact legislation and additional incentives for industries to

comply with environmental provisions and bring out market forces into the business of

environment. In this vein, the Public Liability Act 1991 was adopted to require

industries dealing with hazards to ensure against accidents or damages caused by

release of pollutants.

Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001 apply to every manufacturer,

importer, re-conditioner, assembler, dealer, recycler, auctioneer, consumer and bulk

consumer involved in manufacture, processing, sale, purchase and use of batteries or

components thereof. These rules confer responsibilities on the manufacturer, importer,

assembler and re-conditioner; they govern the registration of importers, the customs

clearance of imports of new lead acid batteries, procedures for registration/ renewal of

registration of recyclers and also the responsibilities of consumer or bulk consumer and

responsibilities of auctioneers.

In 1995 publication of guidelines for Safe Road Transport of Hazardous Chemicals

that established basic rules for Hazardous Goods Transport and provided for

establishment of a Transport Emergency Plan and for provisions on Identification and

assessment of Hazards.

The National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995, provides for expeditious remedies to

parties injured by environmental crimes. Legislation on the Communitys Right to

Know, 1996, has been adopted to provide more access to information regarding

potential hazards from industrial operations.

Bio-Medical Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998, provides a ten category

listing of biomedical waste there control of generation, collection, treatment, transport,

import, storage and disposal of wastes listed in the schedule annexed to these rules.

Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, provides for

collection, segregation, storage, transportation processing and disposal of municipal

solid wastes. The recycled plastic Manufacture and Usage (Amendment) Rules 2003.

These rules essentially deal with plastic recycling and products made out of plastic

recycling.

7. Possible Solutions 1. Make the use of certain chemicals and materials illegal in the production of

electronic devices.

2. Encourage More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs) to dispose of its

own waste. This will prevent child mortality and will raise awareness.

3. Give an incentive to the creation of structured companies that would deal with

electronic waste in Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) to preserve both

jobs and health.

4. Render the use of non rechargeable batteries very expensive with the use of taxes.

8. Conclusion The study findings revealed that these big countries have large number of laws which

talks about the elimination of E-waste but due to blindness of development countries

are not taking sincere step against it. Strictly enforcing these laws is strongly suggested

as a way to prevent those who make a certain kind of donations to developing

countries [9]. Future efforts to minimize illegal dumping will undoubtedly include

a combination of aggressive legislation, new technological solutions, and increased

public awareness through more education on e-Waste. Present laws should be

evaluated and modified periodically to allow proper progression. In developing

countries many people are totally unaware of this problem. Countries have to educate

people about how to recycle, reuse, and dispose electronics at all levels will

teach them and their communities how to behave more responsibly towards the

environment. Indeed, electronic waste is a global problem requiring a global solution.

By Vikram Karuna, Ll.B (Hons.),4th year, B.A LL.B( Hons) Faculty Of Law, University

Of Lucknow

References: 1. Electronic Waste: A Case Study of Reena Gupta, Sangita and Kaur Verinder, Vol. 1(9), 49-56, Dec.

(2011) of Res.J.Chem.Sci. 2. DIT. Environmental management for Information Technology industry in India, Department of

Information Technology, Government of India, 122-124 (2003) 3. Electrical and electronic waste: a global environmental problem. Ramesh Babu B, Parande AK,

Ahmed Basha C. 4. Mittal D., et.al. 2012, E-Waste: A Hidden Threat to Global Environment and Health, VSRD

International Journal of Science and Technology; 2(3): 271-275 5. Anwesha Borthakur, Pardeep Singh, Electronic waste in India: Problems and policies, International

Journal Of Environmental Sciences Volume 3, No 1, 2012: 353-354 6. E-Waste Management In India Consumer Voice April 2009: 32 7. J. Kuper and M. Hojsi k, Poisoning the Poor Electronic Waste in Gahana, Greenpeace

International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. 8. C. Davis, Why is electronic waste a problem? Earthtrends, 2006,

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/130 9. M. Khurrum S. Bhutta, Adnan Omar and Xiaozhe Yang, Electronic Waste: A Growing Concern in

Today's Environment, Economics Research International Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 474230: 10. Anwesha Borthakur, Pardeep Singh, Electronic waste in India: Problems and policies, International

Journal Of Environmental Sciences Volume 3, No 1, 2012: 356 11. Annual report, MAIT (2003) 12. Toxics Link report: Scrapping the Hi-tech Myth: Computer Waste in India, Retrieved from:

www.toxicslink.org, Feb. (2003) 13. Annual Report of Stop the E-waste Problem, an initiative by United Nations University, available at

http://www.step-initiative.org/pdf/Annual_Report_2008.pdf, accessed on March, 2009. 14. Anwesha Borthakur, Pardeep Singh, Electronic waste in India: Problems and policies, International

Journal Of Environmental Sciences Volume 3, No 1, 2012: 357-358 15. United Nations Environmental Program ( UNEP) , RecyclingFrom E- Waste to Resources (

New York: UNEP, 2009) , accessed at www. unep.org, on Jan. 23, 2013. 16. UNEP and Basel Convention, "V ital Waste Graphic s, " Global Resource Information Database

(2005) , accessed at www.grida.no/publications/vg/waste, on Jan. 24, 2013. 17. Lucy McAllister, The Human and Environmental Effects of E-Waste, Population Reference Bureau: 18. Anna O.W. Leung et al. , "Heavy Metals Concentrations of Surface Dust From E- Waste

Recycling and its Human Health Implications in Southeast China, "Environmental Science and Technology 42, no. 7 (2008) : 2674- 80.

19. E-Waste Management In India Consumer Voice April 2009: 31 20. 'Bamako Convention', International Maritime Organisation, 09 December, 2005, < http://www.imo.org 21. 'The Rotterdam Convention', Simultaneous Extra-ordinary Meetings of the Conferences of the Parties to

the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, Bali-Indonesia, 22-24 February, 2010, http://excops.unep.ch

22. Wikipedia, 'Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive', http://en.wikipedia.org 23. Wikipedia, 'China RoHS', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_RoHS Last modified: 09 October, 2010. 24. 'Administrative Measure on the Control of Pollution Caused by Electronic Information Products', 28

February 2006 (English Translated Version), Ministry of Information Industry of the People's Republic of China (No.39), ":163-165

25. The lack of sufficient and reliable data is due to a variety of reasons: data retrieved from trade statistics can only be used to a limited extent as these figures do not allow classification of EEE as waste, used or new products and only a small number of codes are clearly on WEEE (ETC/RWM, 2008: 51); the potentially most reliable source at present, i.e. data reporting according to the WEEE Directive, only started in 2005 and is published with a time lag. Fraud in documents also contributes to the difficulty of determining the true quantity of e-waste (EEA, 2009: 50).

26. Alexandra Skinner, Yvonne Dinter, Alex Lloyd, Philip Strothmann The Challenges of E-Waste Management in India, ASIEN 117 (Oktober 2010), S. 7-26:11-14

27. In August 2010, the EPA announced cleaning up e-waste as one of its six new international priorities (EPA, 2010c). The announcement indicates that changes in this area might occur in the near future.

28. An introduction to Brominated flame retardants. Bromine science and environmental forum, Belgium, www.bsef.com, www.firesafety.org.

29. Transboundary shipment of EWaste Regulations, systems, stakeholders and solutions http://WWW: epository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:bd356625-3d70-41a7.../Wang%20J.

30. Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of E l e c t r o n i c W a s t e R e t r i e v e d f r o m : http://www.cpcb.nic.in/e_Waste.php, March 12, (2008)