ELECTRONIC WASTE AT FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY:
RESEARCH TO EDUCATION TO ACTION
Authored by Jessica Elisabeth Mendes
Graduate Assistant, Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education
Edited by Joseph P. Weakland
Editorial Associate, Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education
FINAL DRAFT
June 20, 2011
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
3
PART I: ELECTRONIC WASTE RECYCLING: OVERVIEW OF AN INTERNATIONAL
ISSUE
A. Defining E-waste
4
B. The Global Perspective
5
C. Benefits of Recycling
6
PART II: EXPANDING THE VIEW OF E-WASTE
A. Engineered Obsolescence and Disposable Technology
B. Consumption
7
7
PART III: POLICY
A. Federal and State Policy
B. Local Policy
10
12
PART IV: A FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY EXAMPLE
A. Florida Gulf Coast University Procedure and Policy
B. Where is Away? Following the Downstream Cycle
C. What is Responsible Recycling?
12
14
17
PART V: THE WAY FORWARD
A. Suggestions for Administrative Action
B. Possibilities for Programs
C. Suggestions for Students and Faculty Action
19
21
23
PART VI: RESEARCH TO EDUCATION TO ACTION
A. Research
B. Education
C. Action
25
26
27
CONCLUSION
27
APPENDICES
A. Electronics Recycling Standards Compared: R2 and e-Stewards
B. Student Government Resolution
28
31
3
INTRODUCTION
Technology is often thought of as an extension of ourselves. It enables us to do more than
we could on our own. In return, the technology we use affects how we view ourselves, our
interactions with each other, and the world around us. But do you ever wonder where your
BlackBerry goes once you’ve dropped it too many times, or your iPod when the new generation
comes out? Or the laptop computer that no longer works? For every new computer technology
that arrives, what happens to the old ones?
As we become increasingly dependent on technology in the education, business, and
entertainment worlds, electronics have been become less expensive, have changed the ways in
which we communicate, and have increased the speed at which we can access information. This
progression has occurred in a very short time. And while many electronic and media devices
have enhanced our lives, they also contribute to the growing global problem of electronic waste.
In understanding that electronic waste will only increase in volume in future years, discerning
the long-term effects of hazardous material and creating a responsible model for disposing of
electronic waste is essential.
Exploring electronic waste at Florida Gulf Coast University promotes awareness,
education, sustainability, and waste reduction. This research project falls under Goal 1 of the
Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education, “Institutional Environmental
Sustainability Research at FGCU.” 1 The research also advances FGCU’s Mission, which states:
Florida Gulf Coast University continuously pursues academic excellence, practices and
promotes environmental sustainability, embraces diversity, nurtures community
partnerships, values public service, encourages civic responsibility, cultivates habits of
lifelong learning, and keeps the advancement of knowledge and pursuit of truth as noble
ideals at the heart of the university’s purpose. 2
The following paper will outline the complex policy issues of e-waste disposal globally,
in the United States, the State of Florida, and at FGCU. It will draw connections between our
precarious relationship with consumer technology and its global implications in the realms of
social justice and ecological integrity. It will start with a definition of electronic waste and the
global, national, state, and local policies that are set in place to manage e-waste. It will touch on
the root problems of electronic waste such as consumption, engineered obsolescence, and
disposable technology.
Using the example of Florida Gulf Coast University, it will explore where electronics go
downstream from FGCU, attitudes of FGCU faculty, staff and students about electronic waste,
1
Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education. Preamble, Mission, and Goals. 19 May 2011
<http://www.fgcu.edu/CESE/mission.html>
2
Florida Gulf Coast University. Vision, Mission, and Guiding Principles. 16 March 2011
<http://www.fgcu.edu/info/mission.asp accessed 16 August 2009>
4
and the various disposal methods practiced by the campus community. It outlines the steps
FGCU is taking to ensure our e-waste is recycled responsibly as well as suggestions for further
action.
In addition, this paper will explore how FGCU is moving from research to education to
action in managing its electronic waste. The framework we have used is fulfilled through
collaboration and non-traditional environmental education experiences. It will explore the steps
FGCU is taking to educate the campus community about e-waste.
PART I: ELECTRONIC WASTE RECYCLING: OVERVIEW OF AN INTERNATIONAL
ISSUE
A. Defining E-waste
Electronic waste, also known as “e-waste,” is composed of discarded, broken, surplus,
obsolete or outdated electronic devices such as computers, monitors, laptops, televisions, cell
phones, keyboards, mice and processors (referred to as peripherals), scanners, printers, fax
machines, DVD players, MP3 players, hair dryers, radios, stereo/audio equipment, game
consoles, rechargeable batteries, and other types of entertainment and household electronic
devices. Electronic waste also encompasses appliances such as microwaves, refrigerators, and
smoke detectors. Generally, if a device has an electrical plug, battery pack, or circuit board, it
can be considered e-waste. However, for the purpose of focusing on higher education, this paper
will narrowly address devices typically used on a university campus such as computers, cell
phones, televisions and peripherals.
Electronic waste is classified as hazardous waste. Many components of e-waste consist of
toxic substances such as lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lithium, beryllium, dioxins,
americium, Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs), Hexavalent Chromium/Chromium VI, and
plastics such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVCs) that can have
serious negative effects on the environment and human life. 3
According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), some of the
materials from electronic waste that can be recycled are: glass from cathode ray tubes (CRTs,
also known as the big bulky TVs and monitors), plastic found in the main component and
accessories of most electronics, copper found in wiring, steel found in computers and televisions,
lead found in circuit boards, CRTs and batteries, mercury found in flat panel displays, and
aluminum found in almost every piece of electronic equipment. According to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), between the years of 2003 to 2005, approximately 1520% of electronics were collected for recycling. The figures note that about 80-85% of
3
Hazardous Substances in e-Waste. E-waste.info. 16 March 2011 <http://ewasteguide.info/node/219>
5
electronics were largely disposed of in landfills. 4 When these materials are recycled, they have a
smaller chance of being released into the environment.
B. The Global Perspective
The problem of e-waste recycling lies beneath its surface. According to the Basel Action
Network (BAN), up to 80% of classified e-waste recyclers in the United States do not actually
recycle the materials collected. Instead, these “recyclers” ship our e-waste overseas. The waste is
often exported to developing countries in Asia and Africa, where it affects impoverished laborers
who disassemble the products in order to retrieve precious metals such as copper and gold. Due
to the lack of regulations and policy in the disassembling process, workers are exposed to a
health-threatening cocktail of chemicals. 5
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), limited information has been
collected on the amount of e-waste that is being exported. The EPA has collected figures for
CRTs. In 2005, approximately 107,500 tons CRTs were exported from the U.S. This figure is
approximately 61% of all CRT monitors and televisions that were collected for recycling. 6
In a recent study, environmental pollution was assessed from unregulated e-waste
recycling in Guangdong province in southern China (the region where most of the e-waste in the
U.S. is shipped). The study focuses on metal pollution in processing facilities sites. Soil, air and
water in processing facilities, surrounding paddy fields, and vegetable gardens were sampled for
heavy metal contamination. The results found that the soil of former incineration sites had the
highest concentration of cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn). Nearby soil had
relatively high levels of Cd and Cu. The study found that eatable portions of vegetables exceeded
the maximum level of permitted levels for food in China. The research concludes that the current
uncontrolled e-waste process causes major pollution to soil and food sources for people who live
and raise families in these areas. This study clearly links the health and environmental effects to
the lack of regulation in the demanufacturing process of e-waste. 7
In a survey conducted by the Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education, we
found that 57% of FGCU faculty, staff, and students were either extremely concerned or very
4
Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Management of Electronic Waste in the United States.
Environmental Protection Agency. 16 March 2011
<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-08.pdf>
5
Spingam, D. Basel Action Network, Toxic Trade News/15 March 2010, “Another Spin: E-waste recyclers face
criticism.” 16 March 2011 <http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2010/100315_ewaste_recycler_faces_criticism.html>
6
Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Management of Electronic Waste in the United States.
Environmental Protection Agency. 16 March 2011
<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-08.pdf>
7
Luo, C., et al. Liu,C., Wang, Y., Liu, X., Li, F., Zhang, G., Li, X. “Heavy Metal Contamination in soils and
vegetables in e-waste processing site, south China.” Journal of Hazardous Materials (2010). 186 (1), 481-490.
6
concerned with the dumping of toxic e-waste in landfills. This data shows that over half of
faculty, staff and students on the FGCU campus have a significantly high level of concern of ewaste materials in landfills.
C. Benefits of Recycling
Not all the components in electronics are environmental hazards. Many valuable
materials require a lot of energy to mine and manufacture. Recycling allows recovery of valuable
materials and limits the extraction of new materials. Even engineered materials such as plastic,
metals, and glass have significant value because of the time and energy used to manufacture
them, and the amount of products that can be made with them. Reusing these materials not only
conserves natural resources and limits the pollution of toxins in air, water, and soil, but also the
effects from manufacturing and greenhouse emissions. According to the 2007 report by the EPA,
recycling one million laptops saves energy equivalent to the electricity used by approximately
3,657 US homes in one year. 8
8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wastes - Resource Conservation - Common Wastes & Materials –
eCycling. Frequent Questions. 16 March 2011 <http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm>
7
Cell phones in particular contain gold, silver, platinum, palladium, copper, and zinc.
These are all recovered in the recycling process and reused by those in various industries.
Plastics that come from cell phones are ground up and used for plastic items including license
plate frames, non-food containers, automotive parts, and garden furniture. When cell-phone
rechargeable batteries are no longer working, they can be used to make other rechargeable
batteries. 9
PART II: EXPANDING THE VIEW OF E-WASTE
A. Engineered Obsolescence and Disposable Technology
Technology, for better or worse, is rapidly changing. Products are designed for short-term
use rather than designed for sustainability. “Engineered obsolescence” or “planned
obsolescence” refers to a strategy in industrial design to limit the useful lifespan of electronic
equipment in order to increase material consumption, and thus profits. Engineered obsolescence
is different than routine maintenance of a piece of equipment. Rather, it reflects the idea that the
item is built poorly in order to ensure revenue when the consumer replaces parts.
In 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that 40 million
computers became obsolete in one year. The industrial design concept of engineered
obsolescence reminds us that much of the electronic equipment we purchase (which can be very
expensive) are actually designed for temporary use and not made to last, forcing the consumer to
replace the product. For example, a computer may stop being useful, even though it works,
because the technological features may be outdated. A cell phone may be engineered for a short
life-span and is not made durable, requiring the consumer to purchase a new component such as
a battery or purchase a new unit altogether. This design strategy, while profitable to some, is
overall inefficient, costly, and perpetuates an unsustainable cycle of waste.
B. Consumption
There is a big difference between buying an item because it no longer works and buying
an item simply because one desires the latest version of a product. In our collective rush to
produce and consume material goods to satisfy the logic of economic growth, we have created an
economic and social system that is smothering the ecological system on which it depends. In
order to buy the items we need or desire, materials must be mined, extracted, cut down, or
9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wastes - Resource Conservation - Common Wastes & Materials –
eCycling. Frequent Questions. 16 March 2011 <http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm>
8
engineered. Lack of sustainable technology and products, wasteful and mindless use of
resources, labor, and capital are large systemic issues that must be addressed and connected
concerning the issue of e-waste. 10
According to a survey conducted in 2008 by the Consumer Electronics Association, a
typical American owns around 24 electronic items per household. 11 A survey conducted by the
Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education found that the average FGCU faculty,
staff and student had a slightly lower average of 18 electronics in their households.
In 2009, Lee County, Florida, collected 44,596 pieces of e-waste, equivalent to 1012.84
tons. Much of the weight of the waste is comprised of televisions. According to Lee County
Waste Management, a recent cosmetic switch from bulky televisions with low resolution to High
Definition (HD) and sleek flat panel displays have added more e-waste into the waste stream. 12
In this example, e-waste exemplifies how technological innovation has become divorced
from ethical reflection. In our demand for the newest devices to satisfy our need to have more
and newer things, we have ignored the fact that many of our electronic devices cause ecological
harm by releasing hazardous materials into the air, water, and soil when disposed of properly.
In the Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education’s survey, respondents were
asked if they considered the environmental impact when purchasing electronics. 23% of students,
faculty and staff said they either “always” or “most of the time” consider environmental impacts.
10
UNEP “Human Development Report 1998” Consumption for Human Development. 16 March 2011
11
Consumer Electronics Association. Market Research Report: Trends in CE Reuse, Recycle and Removal. April
2008.
12
Tscherteu, Erich, Lee County Solid Waste. Personal interview. 16 May 2010.
9
In the same survey, we asked respondents to describe the reasons they replace their
computers. Respondents were able to pick more than one reason why they replaced their
computer. Over 53% of respondents said because the computer was too slow, 44% of
respondents wanted newer technology, 34% of respondents said it just stopped working, 28% of
respondents said it needed more memory, 25% of respondents said it was ruined by viruses or
spyware, and 18% of respondents said they could not upgrade the system or parts.
In the same survey, we asked respondents to describe the reasons they replace their
televisions. Respondents were able to pick more than one reason why they replaced their
television. 45% of respondents said the television stopped working, 36% of respondents said
they wanted HD for better picture quality, 34% of respondents said they wanted a newer
television, and 23% of respondents said the screen was too small.
In the same survey, we asked respondents to describe the reasons they replace their cell
phone. Respondents were able to pick more than one reason why they replaced their cell phone.
42% of respondents said they wanted new features, 42% of respondents said the cell phone
broke, 38% of respondents said it was replaced as part of their plan, 30% of respondents said the
battery would not hold a charge, and 17% of respondents said they changed carriers.
10
The data shows a number of interesting trends that represent issues in consumerism and
engineered obsolescence.
1. The first trend highlights consumerism. A large percent of respondents are saying their
electronics are still in working order, but they want something newer and something with
more features. For example, when surveying reasons why respondents replaced their
computers, televisions and cell phones, on varying levels most respondents wanted
something newer or better as one of the reasons they replaced their equipment.
2. Another interesting trend in the numbers highlights planned obsolescence. A high number
of respondents said that the inability to repair a broken device or component of a device
was the reason why they replaced the item. We can all agree that items are not going to
last forever, but often they are replaced as a result of planned obsolescence.
PART III: POLICY
Retail companies that manufacturer electronics are increasingly offering take back
programs or sponsoring recycling events. But as a whole, policies, procedures, and laws on ewaste are few.
A. Federal and State Policy
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are no federal mandates
for recycling electronics. The only ban that exists is in the exportation of CRTs. As of 2011, 24
states have passed legislation mandating statewide e-waste recycling including California, New
York, Illinois, and Texas. Florida is not one that has specific laws or regulations; rather, it has
more general mandates by counties. Regulations and policies are projected to increase over the
next few years. 13
The United States has not ratified the United Nations Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, also known as the Basel
Convention. The Basel Convention is an international treaty which bans international trafficking
of hazardous waste and advocates global environmental justice. The Basel Convention
establishes a framework of control over the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes,
which means across national boundaries. Thus far, 175 countries, including almost all of Europe,
have signed and ratified the agreement. The United States has signed the treaty, but has not
ratified it. Our policies and actions are not reflective of the treaty, which heavily focuses on the
13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wastes - Resource Conservation - Common Wastes & Materials –
eCycling. Regulations/Standards. 16 March 2011 <http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/rules.htm>
11
ethical and environmental results of irresponsible e-waste recycling from richer nations to poorer
ones. 14
The U.S. Government Accounting Office, (GAO) released a report in July of 2010,
“Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling”.
The report looks at State point of view and efforts to manage electronic waste, the EPA’s efforts
to assist in e-waste management, suggestions to promote more environmentally sound practice
for controlling e-waste, and analyzes the impact of EPA programs. Currently, the EPA’s efforts
to ensure environmentally sound management of e-waste consists of banning the exportation of
cathode-ray tubes (CRT) and partnering with voluntary programs with manufacturers and
companies.
The report notes that the state, federal, environmental groups, retailers, and local
governments have taken the matter into their own hands and have created e-waste laws. It also
addresses that not all states are participating and requirements differ from state to state. This
patchwork approach of state by state management leaves many states without electronic
recycling programs. The lack of streamlined management not only results in varying degrees of
regulation from states but also from manufacturer, retailer and consumer input. While this
patchwork of mandates has increased the awareness of e-waste issues and recycling
opportunities, the report suggests offering a federal standard that would allow for stricter state
standards and provide the states with flexibility. Furthermore, the report notes the threat of
irresponsible recyclers can easily enter and undercut market prices by not processing the material
in an environmentally sound way. While the State approach is successful, it limits the nation’s
ability to address the large, root problem about exportation of e-waste. 15
In the past, the GAO has recommended that more attention be given to State programs
with the resources and support from the EPA to ensure their success. 16 This current document
acknowledges the absence of federal policies, laws and regulations on the issue and great need
for recycling electronics limiting the exposure of hazardous materials to the environment and to
people. The report suggests establishing federal standards for state electronics recycling
programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA also suggests facilitation
with other countries to reduce unsafe recycling and strongly encourages legislation through
congress working with the State Department and the Council on Environmental Quality to ratify
the Basel Convention. This combination can best assist stakeholders in achieving an
environmentally responsible practice of electronics across the U.S.
14
UNEP, Basel Convention, “Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and Their Disposal”. 16 March 2011 <http://www.basel.int/>
15
GAO, “Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling”. 16 May
2011. GAO-10-626
16
GAO, “EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More
Comprehensive Regulation”. 16 May 2011. GAO-08-1044
12
B. Local Policy
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) encourages recycling ewaste depending on the infrastructure of County recycling facilities that support e-waste
recycling. Lee County has a comprehensive waste management policy, which e-waste falls
under. This prohibits the disposal of e-waste in landfills. However, reflective of the federal
policy, there is no mandate that says we must recycle our e-waste. Residents of Lee County pay
for a program where they can leave their e-waste for curbside pickup once a week. This program
is one of few in the nation. When a resident leaves a television on the curb, for example, Lee
County Waste Management tags the item, logs it into a system, and returns to the resident’s
home to pick it up. 17 Residents of Lee County can also drop off their e-waste at the Household
Chemical Waste Facility in Fort Myers or go to: http://www3.leegov.com/solidwaste/
PART IV: A FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY EXAMPLE
A. Florida Gulf Coast University Procedure and Policy
At a public university where we use electronics on a daily basis and employ the latest
distance learning capabilities, we have an increasing reliance on electronics. While these
technologies enhance FGCU’s educational mission, they also contribute to the problem of ewaste.
Florida Gulf Coast University, in conjunction with Lee County Solid Waste
Management, collect e-waste on accord of the County mandates. Physical Plant, Computing
Services, and Library Services are all taking initiative in electronic waste recycling (as well as
the larger realm of recycling), often launching initiatives independently. Many of the initiatives
are not handed down from the administration, but are pursued to stay in line with the
environmental mission of the university. But as FGCU continues to be the model of
environmental stewardship in Southwest Florida, we need to take a closer look at where our ewaste goes from FGCU and the Lee County facilitates.
17
Tscherteu, Erich, Lee County Solid Waste. Personal interview. 16 May 2010.
13
Many students, faculty and staff members at FGCU are concerned with e-waste issues at
FGCU. In the Center survey, nearly 44% of respondents said they were either “extremely
concerned” or “very concerned” about e-waste issues at FGCU, while 33% of respondents said
they were “somewhat concerned.” This illustrates a significantly large group of people who are
concerned with e-waste issues at FGCU.
At FGCU, Work Management Center (WMC) and the Physical Plant handle all of the
university waste. Physical Plant has a strong mission in recycling and their responsibility to
recycle e-waste, even though it is not mandated. It has been taken upon the people in this
department to create a procedure for e-waste and actively participate in the Lee County recycling
e-waste program. According to Physical Plant, until April 2001, e-waste had been sent to the
landfill. But since then, there is a permanent container that stays at FGCU’s main campus for
departmental e-waste. However, Physical Plant only handles departmental e-waste of $1,000 or
more. FGCU does not have a mandate or policy for all university owned electronic waste for less
14
than $1,000 or its annexes such as Residents Housing and other campuses. 18 They do not have a
program for students due to resources, space, and staffing. As a public institution, students,
faculty and staff’s personal electronic waste cannot be recycled with the university allocated
budget.
Equipment is collected as surplus or disposable property by Physical Plant. With e-waste
that is not collected by Physical Plant or Computing Services, Departments are encouraged to
send e-waste to Physical Plant. While FGCU has a procedure to collect some e-waste, the policy
is inadequate in addressing the pervasive and systemic problem of e-waste on our campus,
including campus housing, commuting students, and equipment under $1,000. 19
B. Where is Away? Following The Downstream Cycle
Discarded electronics do not just disappear. As a way to illustrate the connections
between our waste and where it ends up, this research follows the down-stream cycle of
departmental e-waste from FGCU.
In our survey, we found that nearly 70% of FGCU faculty, staff, and students did not
know FGCU’s procedure when handling e-waste. As noted previously, FGCU has a strict system
in place to handle our electronic waste valued over $1,000. This includes university and various
electronic equipment provided by FGCU Departments. For example, faculty computers,
department printers, lap tops, and fax machines are given an inventory/property tag. Electronics
that receive a property tag only are disposed of in the following way.
18
Florida Gulf Coast University. FGCU Physical Plant. 16 March 2011
<http://admin.fgcu.edu/phyplant/RECYCLING%201.htm#Electronics>
19
McConnell, Vikki, Assistant Director Physical Plant, Florida Gulf Coast University. Personal interview. 24 May
2010.
15
Generally, after a piece of university equipment reaches the end of its useful life, it is sent
to Physical Plant where the items are held on a palette to be collected by Lee County Solid Waste
Management. FGCU pays an approximate fee of $4,000 annually for pick-ups.
Lee County uses several vendors to dispose of its electronic waste. At the time of this
research, the main vendor Lee County used was American Electronic Recycling (AER). Lee
County sometimes works with Creative Recycling (CRS), which is an e-Stewards Responsible
Recycler. Lee County Waste uses several vendors because companies cannot always provide
collection when Lee County requests it. The e-waste companies the County contracts with are
not granted exclusivity to the waste. This is mainly due to storage and economics factors since
market prices in recycled materials change daily. Because this program’s budget is allocated
from resident taxes, the waste goes to the lowest bidder who can pick it up upon request.
The following specifically outlines where e-waste from FGCU goes:
When a piece of electronic equipment, for example, a university computer, is unused, the
item is sent to Computing Services on campus. Computing Services determines whether or not
the item can be either: (1) fixed and re-used on campus, (2) fixed and donated to a nonprofit
organization, (3) cannibalized (meaning parts are used for something else), or (4) needs to be
disposed of. When a computer can no longer be re-used, the hard drive is cleared and the device
is sent to Physical Plant on campus. 20
20
Banks, Mary, Director of Computing Services, Florida Gulf Coast University. Personal interview. 14 August
2010.
16
The items are then collected according to Lee County Solid Waste Division (LCSWD).
At the time of this research, LCSWD mainly used AER for their e-waste pickups. LCSWD sorts
through and separates the items. AER picks up the materials and sends them to the AER facility
in Sarasota, Florida. AER picks up approximately two tractor-trailer loads a week from Lee
County, some of which include FGCU’s e-waste. According to LCSWD, they visit the locations
periodically, announced and unannounced, to perform site inspections. 21
At AER, the items are taken apart or ground down into scrap metals, glass, plastics,
ferrous and non-ferrous metals. AER then sells the various metals and plastic components to
smelting factories around the United States. Circuit boards are sent to Global Investment
Recovery Inc. located in Tampa, Florida, copper is sent to I Shuman Inc. in Bedford, Ohio, steel
is sent to Gerdau Ameristeel Inc. in Baldwin, Florida, glass is sent to Doe Run in Missouri, and
aluminum is sent to Metal Solutions LLC in Knoxville, Tennessee. AER was unable to provide
the company to which they send plastics. The companies noted above then sell the materials to
markets all over the world. The illustration below outlines the downstream cycle from FGCU. 22
The cycle starts out sharply visible from FGCU. However, it becomes more unclear as
the cycle continues downward. The problem begins with AER in Sarasota which offers no
independent, third-party verification that it does not export hazardous waste to developing
countries. They also offer no verification that it does not use or sell to companies that use prison
labor to break down electronics, or dumps electronics containing hazardous wastes into landfills.
AER does refer to a “No Landfill Promise” on its website, but it is not verified by an
independent third party. Furthermore, there is no third-party verification that Global Investment
Recovery Inc. does not export circuit boards to developing countries, where they could wind up
in burning fields. As a university community with an environmental mission, then, we must be
willing to ask not only where our e-waste ends up, but also, where does our responsibility end?
21
In March of 2011, Lee County ceased business with AER. Lee County Waste officials have noted that AER has
been going through management issues and currently e-waste collected by Lee County is going to CRS. Lee County
is seeking other vendors.
22
Gligrijevic,Bojan, Marketing & GSA Contracts, American Electronics Recycling. Personal interview. 19 June
2010.
17
C. What is Responsible Recycling?
There are positive things being done in the realm of e-waste, but without support from
policy, oversight, and clear regulations, there lacks a common thread to hold organizations,
manufactures, and consumers accountable for what they do with their waste and where it ends
up. Many would argue that there is nothing wrong with global trade. However, because we are
dealing with hazardous waste, lack of inclusive policies makes it extremely difficult to ensure
that our electronic waste is actually recycled and will not end up in a landfill overseas.
Companies and organizations that become certified in responsible recycling are
companies that take the extra step to care about the downstream cycle of waste in the United
18
States. Certifications are obtained by companies in the industry much like other labels such as
Organic and Fair Trade.
In July of 2010, the EPA recognized the Basel Action Network’s (BAN) e-Stewards
Recycler Certification and Associated e-Stewards Standard for the responsible recycling and
reuse of electronic equipment. Basel Action Network’s e-Stewards Recycler Certification and
program was set up by BAN and others in the recycling industry to assess companies in the areas
of data security, health and safety of workers, and other environmentally safe and responsible
practices. The e-Stewards Certification stands out because it prohibits exportation of hazardous
waste from developed countries to developing countries. The e-Stewards Standard holds the
ethical component of e-waste in very high regard and is consistent with international trade rules
such as the Basel Convention and ISO 14001 Certification, which is a series of environmental
management standards. 23
Another certification is developed by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI)
called the Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS) R2/RIOS certification. It has many of
the components of the e-Stewards Certification in that it focuses on data security practices, as
well as environmental and worker safety in the United States, but it does not ban the exportation
of hazardous waste to developing countries. See Appendix A to compare and contrast the details
of these certifications.
PART V: THE WAY FORWARD
FGCU has been making the right steps towards addressing e-waste issues on campus. The
Florida Gulf Coast University Strategic Plan for 2005-2010 is a document that outlines FGCU as
a rapidly growing institution. Under the electronic waste portion, it clearly illustrates the need for
a program to, “make electronic waste recycling mandatory at every level at all university
campuses and facilities.” The document suggests a policy would have supervisors rated on their
effectiveness in recycling hazardous waste produced by their area. 24 However, this structure may
not be the best policy implementation for FGCU. There may be other options in the strategic
planning and implications of an e-waste program.
A university e-waste policy would raise awareness of resource use and recycling on the
FGCU campus among faculty, staff, and students, and implement strategies to enhance campusrecycling systems. This would include a process for proper and responsible disposal that ensures
data security, environmental safety, worker’s safety, and consumer responsibility.
23 The
24
Basel Action Network, 2011. 16 March 2011 <http://www.ban.org>
Florida Gulf Coast University. Strategic Sustainability Goals. 16 March 2011
<http://www.fgcu.edu/Provost/files/Copy_of_StrategicSustainabilityGoals.pdf>
19
A. Suggestions for Administrative Action
Various departments on campus have noted the FGCU Administration has been very
supportive of their electronic waste recycling efforts. The Physical Plant and Work Management
Center have set up a program that can be further developed. The following are suggestions for
administrators and departments of FGCU for improvement:
1. Expand the E-waste Policy at FGCU
Collaboration between Work Management, Physical Plant, Environmental Health and
Safety, Computing Services, Housing and Residence Life, Library Services,
Administrative Services and Board of Trustees to develop an e-waste policy to
encompass all university equipment of less than $1,000. A University e-waste policy
would include all university owned equipment and extend to FGCU’s annexes including
North Lake Village, South Village, West Lake Village, Buckingham Property, Vector
Marine Lab, Naples, Cape Coral and Punta Gorda Campuses.
2. Become an e-Steward Enterprise
Pursue e-Stewards Certified recyclers as a matter of policy. Choose responsible recyclers
that ensure our e-waste will not end up overseas. While this decreases FGCU’s vendor
qualification, with FGCU's ethics at stake, using an independent third-party process is the
best route.
The issue for FGCU comes down to trust versus verification. Universities, governments,
and business that use e-Stewards recyclers have confidence that their e-waste will not be
dumped in landfills, incinerated, or exported to developing countries. Accredited
certification bodies audit e-Stewards Certified recyclers on site, annually.
FGCU, in collaboration with the Basel Action Network, would also become the first
University e-Stewards Enterprise, ensuring responsible disposal of electronic waste.
The Basel Action Network’s e-Stewards Enterprise agreement is an easy commitment.
FGCU would simply have to affirm that we would pursue using e-Stewards recyclers for
electronic waste disposition when possible. BAN would need a basis annual report and
the marketing fee of $500 a year. Normally, the marketing fee is based on the company
gross annual revenues. For universities, BAN uses the operating and non-operating
revenue to determine the marketing fee. Based on the FGCU Annual Report from 20092010, the operating and non-operating revenue is $8.8 million. BAN discounts the
company annual fee by half for universities and non-profits, thus making the marketing
fee to FGCU $500 a year.
20
3. Use Creative Recycling (CRS) an e-Stewards Responsible Recycler for All
Electronic Waste at FGCU
In April and May of 2011, CRS collected e-waste for student housing. The event was
sponsored by the Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education and Campus
Housing. We have been assured by the Basel Action Network that BAN is in the final
stages of paperwork to award CRS with becoming an e-Stewards Recycler. As noted
earlier, the e-waste companies Lee County contracts with are not granted exclusivity to
the waste. Our downstream e-waste cycle starts out strong and clear here at FGCU, but as
it goes down the system of disposal, the path becomes less clear. FGCU usually has about
3-4 pickups annually and the estimated figure is approximately $4,000 annually to
recycle departmental campus e-waste.
If FGCU directly worked with CRS to recycle our e-waste, instead of using Lee County
as a middleman, CRS could pick up the e-waste from FGCU at a flat fee of $125 per
pickup bringing the annual cost to FGCU down to no more than $500 annually.
Annual Based:
FGCU current payment for e-waste recycling with Lee County = $4,000
FGCU e-waste recycling with CRS (instead of Lee County) = $500
FGCU e-Stewards Enterprise agreement = $500
FGCU to become an e-Steward Enterprise and use CRS for e-waste disposal = $1,000
Savings to FGCU = $3,000
As noted earlier, signing the e-Stewards Enterprise agreement does not mean that FGCU
has to only use e-Stewards for all of our electronic waste disposal. It’s simply an
agreement that says we’ll try. BAN would help FGCU grow its use of e- Stewards over
time. But since CRS has agreed to pick up our e-waste for a very minimal fee, the money
we save from pickup can go towards becoming an e-Stewards Enterprise and also fulfill
our agreement. With the savings of $3,000 to FGCU just this year, this would cover
the marketing fee to become an e-Stewards Enterprise for the next six years.
4. Support Programs for Students, Faculty and Staff
Consider developing a technology support program, recycling/reuse program and/or a
technology support program for housing students, and commuting students and faculty.
Develop a resource to assist commuting students and faculty to recycle their e-waste
which will cut down on e-waste on campus. This includes allocating funds to Physical
Plant for additional staff, location, and other resources to handle collected e-waste
21
5. Marketing and Educational Campaign
Create a marketing campaign to get the campus aware of e-waste in general and where
students, faculty, and staff can bring their e-waste. Provide more detailed information to
faculty and staff regarding how to properly recycle department waste. If FGCU were to
become an e-Stewards Enterprise this would allow to use of the e-Stewards Responsible
Recycler logo for any material.
B. Possibilities for Programs
Through the Center survey, we found that students, faculty, and staff would be willing to
pay for an e-waste recycling program on campus. Since FGCU cannot foot the cost of students,
faculty, and staff’s personal e-waste with the state allocated budget, we looked into whether or
not the university community would be willing to pay extra, per semester, for such a program.
The results were that 35% of respondents said they would pay between $3.00 to $5.00
dollars per semester, 20% of respondents said they were willing to pay $7.00-$9.00 per semester,
18% of respondents said they were willing to pay $5.00-$7.00 per semester, and 27% of
respondents said they would not be willing to pay anything. Close to 75% of respondents were
willing to pay a fee per semester for a recycling program.
22
In the same survey, we found that students, faculty, and staff would also be willing to pay
for a technology support program where they could bring their personal computers to be fixed on
campus. Currently, Computing Services helps students when they can, but there are no resources
allocated in their budget to set up a program. The results were that 32% of respondents said they
would be willing to pay $7.00-$9.00 per semester, 28% of respondents said they would pay
$3.00-$5.00 per semester, 17% of respondents said they would pay $5.00-$7.00 per semester,
and 23% said they would be willing to pay anything. Nearly 75% of respondents were willing to
pay a fee per semester for a technology support program.
23
C. Suggestions for Student and Faculty Action
•
Students can look on Earth911.org to find out where they can recycle e-waste and other
products. The best option is to look on the Basel Action Network website for a certified
e-Stewards Recycler.
http://www.earth911.com
http://e-stewards.org/
•
The Lee County Solid Waste Management Hazardous Waste Facility is located at 6441
Topaz Court in Fort Myers. There is a fee for electronic disposal if you are not a resident
of the county. Contact Lee County’s Division of Solid Waste at 239-533-8000 to make
sure they recycle the electronic device you may have.
o Lee County does offer a wide range of hazardous waste drop offs for items such
as florescent light bulbs, single-use batteries, motor oil, aerosol cans, car fluids,
household cleaners, paint, small appliances and other toxic chemicals.
•
Advocate to federal and local municipal government organizations to keep electronics out
of landfills and encourage them to set a mandate to recycle materials to reduce
environmental impacts of manufacturing and mining processes.
FEDERAL
President
Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone: (202) 456-1111
Web: http://www.whitehouse.gov
U.S. Senate
Bill Nelson
United States Senate
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5274
Web: http://billnelson.senate.gov/
Marco Rubio
B40A Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3041
Web: http://rubio.senate.gov/
24
FLORIDA
Governor
Rick Scott
Office of Governor Rick Scott
State of Florida
The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Web: http://www.flgov.com/
E-mail: [email protected]
LEE COUNTY
County Commissioners
Find your district: http://www.lee-county.com/gov/bocc/Pages/default.aspx
FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY
President Wilson G. Bradshaw
Office of the President
Florida Gulf Coast University
10501 FGCU Blvd S.
Fort Myers, FL. 33965-6565
Phone: (239) 590-1051
Email: [email protected]
•
If you have a cellphone in working condition, donate it to a nonprofit organization such
as domestic violence, children’s safety, and school organizations.
•
Watch The Story of Electronics at http://storyofstuff.org/electronics.php
•
Limit disposal; buy only what you need.
•
To find out more about buying environmentally conscious products log onto:
http://www.digitaltips.org/green/default.asp
http://www.purchasing.upenn.edu/green-initiative/index.php
•
Tell your family, friends, and colleagues what you’ve learned.
25
PART VI: RESEARCH TO EDUCATION TO ACTION
The Center has used the framework “research to education to action” to identify key issues
with e-waste and exploring the issues of e-waste at FGCU. By using the framework research to
education to action, we can impact the university and local community by researching the topic,
disseminating the information we have found through various educational practices, and
motivating students, faculty, administration, and the community to take action. These nontraditional education experiences not only bring awareness to both students and faculty on the
FGCU campus, but also support action.
A. Research
The problem of e-waste is larger than recycling. As we found through research, the root
of this problem deals with policy, social justice and environmental justice. The research
questions were: (1) What is the policy for recycling electronics at FGCU? (2) What is the
downstream cycle of electronics from FGCU? (3) What are some of the ethical, environmental,
sustainability and policy issues related to e-waste programs at FGCU?
The find out where e-waste went from FGCU we followed the downstream cycle to the
global stage. The research started at FGCU but also included onsite visits to Lee County Solid
Waste Management facilities and American Electronics Recycling (AER) facilities, the
contractor for Lee County. Interviews with FGCU Computing Services, Physical Plant, Library
Services, and Lee County Waste Management were also held to get a better understanding of the
process here at FGCU, generate some concepts about FGCU’s e-waste management practice,
observe the trends and learn about the concerns, successes and alternatives to e-waste
management at FGCU.
A 26 question survey, approved by the Internal Review Board (IRB S2010-48) was also a
large component of the research. The survey intended to get an overall understanding of trends,
habits and views regarding e-waste at FGCU. It also was a tool to assess ethical reflection of
respondents and enable a more precise understanding of not only what our demographic is doing
with their e-waste, but what were they likely to do with their e-waste. The sample size included
all University faculty, staff and students. The survey was sent through the Office of Academic
Affairs and Office of Student Affairs. The response rate was over 400 individuals.
Mostly, the survey results were quantitative. The data was compiled through a basic
report and imported into a spreadsheet and for the purpose of this paper analyzed through
univariate analysis. The aggregate results of this data as well as further analysis with
multivariable t-tests and graphical techniques with SPSS were used to discuss ethical reflection
of e-waste at the Terry Tempest Williams Student Dialogue. This data was shared with the
audience to develop a deeper understanding of what our habits and trends are here at FGCU.
Qualitative data was analyzed by interpretive techniques such as content analysis.
26
B. Education
One of the ways we disseminated research findings was through an annual student-led
event, the 2010 Terry Tempest Williams Student Dialogue, entitled, “E-waste and Ethics: Where
do BlackBerry’s Decompose?” The series focuses on education for a sustainable future,
including our role as stewards of our natural, cultural, and political environments. Intended to
spark youth action and inspire the intellectual climate among the FGCU and Southwest Florida
communities, the initiative fosters an open space for dialogue and student ownership of that
dialogue. It is created by students, and students comprises most of its audience. When the topic
of e-waste was chosen for the 2010 Dialogue, we wanted to do research to find out what happens
to our e-waste at FGCU.
In the Dialogue, we explored e-waste and the people and places it effects. The event
sought to draw connections between our precarious relationship with consumer technology and
the people and places that it impacts. Our reflection was inspired by Principle 7 of the Earth
Charter: “Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safe guard Earth’s
regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.” 25 Earth Charter ethics was a
way to help us think critically about our understanding of technology, sustainability, and ethics.
Principle 7, in particular, suggests we imagine modes of production and consumption that avoid
harm to our environment and fellow human beings. It points toward responsible choices based on
precaution and forethought.
Panelists included Jim Puckett, Director of the Basal Action Network and Eric Otto,
Assistant Professor of Environmental Humanities, and Jessica Mendes, graduate student at
FGCU. The event was co-moderated by Center student assistants Ariel Chomey and Jordan
Yingling, and a special invocation was given by Miccosukee elder, Andy Buster. During the
Dialogue, panelists brought their unique perspective to explore the question of technology,
ethics, and sustainability in the hidden lifecycle of electronics and how our relationship with
technology might be guided by an ethical awareness. The estimated attendance of the Dialogue
was approximately 350 students, faculty, staff and community members. By educating the
audience about the global perspective to the FGCU perspective of e-waste, and exploring how
the effects of our increasingly intimate relationship with technology and materials has on the
environment.
The student arm of the Center, Student Associates for a Greener Environment (SAGE),
also raised awareness on campus through tabling sessions, a presentation at Student Government
annual week-long event Active Lifestyles of Health Adults (ALOHA) where we showed a
documentary on e-waste and afterwards hosted a question and answer session.
25
Earth Charter Commission. 2000.‘The Earth Charter.’ Accessed 20 May 2011. Available online
at <http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html >
27
C. Action
As a subsequent education and action component, a Student Government Senate
Resolution was unanimously passed. The resolution covers the systemic issues of e-waste
recycling, the effects and results of e-waste processes, and the lack of policy and laws. The
resolution calls for the Student Body of FGCU to support creating a policy for responsibly
handling e-waste at the university and its annexes. The document reflects that this is necessary to
fulfill FGCU’s environmental mission. The Student Body supports FGCU using an e-Stewards
company, ensuring that our e-waste will not be exported to developing countries where recycling
procedures lack proper protection. This resolution was sent to the Office of the President at
FGCU, the Office of Administrative Services and Finance, and the Office of Housing and
Residence Life. For details of the resolution see Appendix B.
The Center has also teamed up with Campus Housing to host an e-waste recycling event
for commuter students, faculty, campus housing and community members. The event hosted
Creative Recycling (CRS), an e-Stewards Certified organization. By bringing old electronic
waste to be recycled with a responsible recycler, we ensured their e-waste did not enter a landfill
to contribute to the degradation of our environment, or end up overseas in a developing country.
In the future, the Center would like to work with the Board of Trustees to implement a
University policy for e-waste.
CONCLUSION
The paper outlines where we can take action to improve electronic waste management
practices on six specific levels; the global, national, state, local, campus, and personal level. With
support from policy, oversight, and regulations for manufacturers, organizations and consumers
the issues of e-waste can be appropriately addressed.
At Florida Gulf Coast University, there has been a significant amount of leadership in the
area of waste management and recycling in Physical Plant, Work Management, Library Services
and other departments on campus. Improving in the realm of e-waste is not only important for
waste management but also the environmental mission of the university. This paper clearly
demonstrates the need for expanding FGCU’s e-waste policy. At best, this would include
developing FGCU’s e-waste policy to include Campus Housing and annexes and implementing
an electronic waste recycling program for students. At least, it demonstrates the need for FGCU
to improve upon their current downstream cycle and use an e-Stewards Certified Recycler to
uphold the environmental and sustainability mission of the university.
Electronics Recycling Standards Compared:
R2 and e-Stewards®
Only the e-Stewards standard prohibits export of hazardous e-waste to developing nations.
Why the environmental groups support e-Stewards and not R2
There are now two voluntary certification programs based on performance standards for
electronics recyclers: The R2 Guidelines and the e-Stewards Standard. How do they compare?
When you look at how the two standards address the four worst problems plaguing the e-waste
recycling industry – particularly the problem with exporting e-waste to developing countries - it is
clear that the e-Stewards Standard sets a much higher bar for this industry that is plagued by “fake
recyclers” and exporting. This chart explains why.
The 4 worst problems
plaguing the recycling industry
R2
e-Stewards
Problem 1: EXPORTING E-WASTE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
The U.S. exports most of its toxic e-waste to developing nations, where it causes great harm. This is
the single biggest problem plaguing this industry, and U.S. laws don’t prevent it.
Does the standard prohibit
recyclers from exporting ewaste to developing countries
for RECYCLING?
No, exports are allowed.
Yes. The e-Stewards Standard
prohibits these exports.
Does the standard prohibit
recyclers from exporting nonworking hazardous equipment
or parts to developing countries
for REPAIRS?
No. In fact, this is one of the
biggest loopholes in R2. An R2
certified exporter may send
non-working hazardous
equipment from the U.S. to an
R2 certified company in a
developing nation. The R2
export language will not
Yes. Only working equipment,
which has been tested and is
fully functional may be
exported to developing
nations. If it doesn’t work, or
hasn’t been tested, it can’t be
exported if it contains
hazardous components.
Electronics TakeBack Coalition www.electronicstakeback.com April 12, 2010
The 4 worst problems
R2
plaguing the recycling industry
e-Stewards
prevent this even though the
import of this material is likely
illegal in the receiving country.
Does the standard require ewaste exports from the U.S. to
developing countries to comply
with the importing countries’
laws?
No. R2 says imports must go to
countries “which legally allow
it” but then it allows the
recycler to decide what’s
legal. This is a problem
because only the importing
countries (not an R2 exporter)
have the right to determine
what wastes or materials are
legal for them to import.
Yes, and goes beyond this. The
exports of toxic materials for
recycling and exports of nonworking toxic e-waste are
simply not allowed from
developed to developing
countries. Legal compliance is
not an issue because the
exports don’t take place.
R2 claims the exports will be
legal, but their auditors are not
conducting a legal
compliance audit. Therefore,
R2 certification provides no
legitimate proof that the
imports are legal.
Problem 2: INCINERATION/LANDFILLING E-WASTE
U.S. laws allow toxic e-waste to be sent to solid waste landfills and incinerators that are not
designed for hazardous waste, resulting in inappropriate management and release of heavy
metals and persistent bio-accumulative chemicals.
Does the standard prohibit
incineration or landfilling of
toxic e-waste?
No. R2 discourages but still
allows R2 certified recyclers to
put toxic e-waste in solid waste
landfills or incinerators,
including waste-to-energy
incinerators, if undefined
‘circumstances beyond their
control’ occur.
Yes, this is prohibited. The eStewards Standard bans the
disposal of hazardous e-waste
in solid waste landfills and
incinerators, including wasteto-energy incinerators.
Problem 3: WORKER HEALTH & SAFETY
The U.S. is doing little to identify potential hazards and to protect its own electronics recycling
workers. A common practice in the U.S. is to shred electronics that contain mercury, small batteries
lead-tin solders, and brominated flame retardants in the mix, when it is widely known that this
disperses toxins directly into the workplace and the shredded materials.
What chemical hazards does
the standard require the
recycler to address in
protecting workers?
R2 leaves it up to recyclers to
identify the toxic chemicals
they are dealing with, their
potential hazards, and
appropriate tests for
exposures.
The e-Stewards Standard
specifies the hazards which
must be tested for (at a
minimum) while using certain
recycling technologies, such
as breaking CRTs, removing
mercury-containing devices,
shredding, using solvents and
thermal processes.
Electronics TakeBack Coalition www.electronicstakeback.com April 12, 2010
The 4 worst problems
R2
e-Stewards
What kinds of worker health
testing or monitoring are
required?
R2 has no baseline
requirements for what tests
should be done to check for
exposure to toxic materials
common in electronics, or how
to minimize exposure. R2
recyclers must develop their
own Environmental Health and
Safety Management System,
but the requirements are very
general and allow the recycler
to determine what’s
“appropriate.”
The e-Stewards Standard
requires recyclers to establish
and maintain procedures to
minimize exposure, but it goes
even further by requiring very
specific kinds of worker testing
and monitoring, every 6
months, by qualified professionals to detect unsafe
exposures. Recyclers must
conduct full occupational
health and safety evaluations
every 3 years.
Mercury is known to be a
problem for recyclers, since it’s
used in lamps, switches, and
button cell batteries commonly
found in electronics. How does
the standard address this very
toxic material?
R2 allows mercury and
batteries to go into shredders,
if it’s “too costly” to remove
small mercury devices, and
the recycler can argue that
workers are protected and
“appropriate technology” is
used, although that’s not
defined. While shredding
mercury in e-waste is currently
allowed under OSHA regulations, there are currently no
shredders that can capture
vaporized mercury.
e-Stewards recyclers must
safely remove and separate
all mercury-containing
devices so they are not
recycled or disposed of using
potentially hazardous
processing technologies (such
as shredding). (End processors
for mercury are allowed to do
this, in fully licensed and
permitted mercury retort
operations.)
plaguing the recycling industry
Problem 4: PRISON RECYCLING
The federal government sends toxic e-waste to federal prison recycling operations, where inmates
lack the same rights and options to redress serious occupational hazards as private sector workers.
Because this government prison recycling is subsidized by taxpayers, it competes unfairly with
private sector recyclers and therefore undermines private sector recyclers.
Does the standard prohibit the
use of prison recycling?
No. R2 allows the use of prison
recycling, and prison recycling
operations may be certified.
Yes. The e-Stewards Standard
bans the use of prison labor for
processing hazardous e-waste.
CERTIFICATION PROGRAM OVERSIGHT
Certification program ownership
and oversight
R2 has no owner, thus multiple
R2 programs exist without
central oversight on quality
control, auditor training,
maintenance & interpretation
of ‘R2 Practices’, use of logo,
promotion of the program,
certification & accreditation.
The e-Stewards program is
housed by the Basel Action
Network, with full time staff
and certification consultants
who oversee quality control on
all aspects of the standard,
auditor training, certification,
accreditation, & use of logo.
Learn more about the e-Stewards program: www.e-stewards.org
Electronics TakeBack Coalition www.electronicstakeback.com April 12, 2010
Florida Gulf Coast University
Student Government
Senate 2010-2011
Senate Resolution #
Title: Electronic Waste Resolution
Date Introduced:
WHEREAS, electronic waste, also known as “e-waste,” is described as discarded, obsolete, or broken
computers, monitors, laptops, televisions, cell phones, printers, scanners, fax machines, DVD players,
MP3 players, computer components (such as processors, memory cards, hard drives, keyboards, and
mice), anything that has an electrical plug, battery pack or circuit board and other types of digital
hardware; and,
WHEREAS, although technology furthers our lives, the devices can cause ecological harm by releasing
hazardous materials into the air, water and soil. The dismantling of e-waste without proper regulations
and protective gear exposes workers to lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lithium, beryllium, dioxins and
plastics such as polychlorinated biphenyls, which are known to cause numerous health problems; and
WHEREAS, the United Nations and Basel Action Network estimates that more than 40 million tons of ewaste is produced globally each year and as much as 80% of collected e-waste recycling in the U.S. is
being exported to Asia and Africa; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Gulf Coast University Physical Plant can only recycle university property and
therefore cannot offer recycling options to on campus and commuter students; and
WHEREAS, the Basal Action Network has setup a program called e-Stewards that prohibits the export of
e-waste to developing nations, bans the use of prison labor, landfills or incinerators for toxic materials,
includes industry-specific performance requirements, including prohibiting shredding of mercury,
requires proper worker health and safety protections, requires accountability for toxics all the way to
final processing, requires full compliance with existing international hazardous waste treaties for exports
and imports of electronics, ensures integrity of recycling operations through a rigorous independent
audit process conducted by accredited certification bodies.
WHERAS, if the university used e-Stewards they could guarantee that the e-waste will not be dumped in
landfills, incinerated, and in particular, not exported to developing countries. Using an e-Steward would
also ensure responsible data security practices. FGCU would be the first university to become a
University e-Steward Enterprise it would show commitment to environmental issue and responsible
business practices; and
WHEREAS, part of FGCU’s mission is “practices and promotes environmental sustainability”;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Student Body of FGCU supports that creating a policy for
responsibly handing e-waste at the university and its annexes is necessary to stay in line with its mission;
and
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Body supports FGCU using an e-Steward
company, ensuring that our e-waste will not be exported to developing countries where recycling
procedures lack proper protection; and
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be sent to the Office of the President at
FGCU, the Office of Administrative Services and Finance, and the Office of Housing and Residence Life.
Author(s): Jennifer Joyce (College of Health Professions), and Jessica Mendes (Graduate Assistant,
Center For Environmental and Sustainability Education)
Sponsor(s): Jennifer Joyce (College of Health Professions), Ashley Seeley (Graduate)
Vote: Yes______ No_______ Abstain ____
______________________________________________________________________________
Lauren Schuetz, Senate President
Date