<-n| ipfpc Import * Households • Businesses •
SUUnLtj Governments* State Programs



FACTORS

e

CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE

CRT LANDSCAPE

ADVANTAGES O

CHALLENGES O

No legal requirement in many states to recycle electronics

Inconsistent state laws

Products with no OEM in existence

CRTs are big and heavy and inconvenient to recycle

CRT rule doesn't apply to households

Consumers may be unwilling to pay to recycle if disposal is

cheaper

Technology change (CRTs replaced by flat panel)

With EPR laws, responsibility for disposition of CRTs has
shifted from consumers to manufacturers (Note: this has
different perspectives.)

Regional variation in collection systems
"Cherry picking" high-value parts lowers value down the
chain

Economic incentive needed to recycle
Broken CRTs harder to recycle

Enforcement needed against illegal disposal by generators

Zy BY THE ELECTRONICS RECYCLING COMMUNITY

ASSEMBLED BY U.S. EPA, SEPTEMBER 2014

CERAMICS

CRT Problem Statement

CRTs and CRT glass were once easily recycled
into new CRTs; however, the demand for new
CRTs has collapsed in favor of new flat panel
technologies.

Because of rising costs, negative economic
incentives, and shifts in CRT glass markets,
some CRT processors and recyclers are
choosing to store the glass indefinitely rather
than send it for recycling (or disposal), which
increases the risk of mismanagement and/or
abandonment of the CRTs.

a
a
a

Substitute for raw material

Doesn't require energy to separate lead from

glass

Large global capacity potentially available

Would likely require export

May not be able to export to non-OECD countries

Shifts the lead to ceramics, which may create legacy issue

Proper firing required in order to minimize exposure

Needs regulatory certainty/acceptance

Real capacity unknown

GLASS FURNACES

Uses electricity/plasma to
separate lead from glass

Smaller and regional in scale; could be co-
located with large piles of glass
Multiple furnaces would lower freight costs
Lead recovered from CRT glass

Very few in operation

High energy consumption; lifecycle assessment may be
helpful

Needs longer timeframes to store glass
Small capacity
Permitting/regulatory issues
Disposition of slag

COLLECTION _
POINT

OEMs • Municipal Collectors •

Recyclers • Retailers

ELECTRONICS
RECYCLER

GLASS TO GLASS/CRT MANUFACTURING

There is niche market for CRTs
CRTs are inexpensive and are more robust
equipment for variable power situations

Thousands of collectors are highly fragmented and hard to
organize

No standard or requirements for a "collector"

Subsidies and manufacturer payments going to collectors

rather than recyclers

Collectors have no solution for CRT glass

Breakdown in contracting/auditing for ensuring proper CRT

glass disposition

Recyclers collecting without contracts with manufacturers
"Cherry picking" high-value parts lowers value down the
chain

Lack of/varying levels of education about CRT regulation in
different states

CRTs are heavy and pose a challenge to ship long-distance
Inconsistency in state programs
Lack of up-to-date information for consumers on which
collectors will take CRTs

Hiring of recyclers sometimes leads to funding being split by
two recyclers

Lack of rural route density increases cost per unit

Bad actors in the industry misrepresenting "air pounds"

Broken CRTs are harder to recycle

Shipments out of state can't be regulated by original

jurisdiction

Use of pounds as basis for performance encourages CRTs to
be collected

Ergonomic challenges of managing CRTs—physical wear and
tear on people

Financial incentive for entities to get paid to receive
CRTs and then not pay to recycle (or dispose)

Lack of enforcement of CRT rule by states and EPA
Lack of tracking of CRTs to final disposition
Barriers to entry are low

Lack of awareness about phosphor, silica and lead
hazards in the workplace
Certification is not assurance of compliance or
responsible recycling

Stewardship organizations represent a monopsony
and consolidate the control of contracts by selecting
vendors. This creates lack of competition, which in
certain states raises costs. (Note: this has different
perspectives.)

Recyclers aren't charging enough to cover costs for
recycling

Too many recyclers are exporting CRTs improperly
Whenever the state manages CRT recycling, it
seems issues of mismanagement increase
Lack of knowledge about outlets for recycling CRTs
Lack of engagement of glass manufacturers who
made the glass

Lack of adequate closure plans

Ergonomic challenges of managing materials-

physical wear and tear on people

Costs are high to switch to new technologies

Lack of clear specs for recycling grade material

Need to ship trailer loads of CRTs/glass in order to

be accepted

Thin operating margins, insufficient funds held

CONCRETE

Huge capacity
Regional markets

LEAD/COPPER SMELTER

Existing process in operation

Regulated

Large capacity

o (Note: Different perspectives on this
point)

CRT REUSE

There is niche market for CRTs

CRTs are more robust equipment for variable

power situations

Inexpensive compared to LCDs

RETRIEVABLE STORAGE

i

TREATMENT AND

DISPOSAL IN LANDFILL

(HAZARDOUS OR NON-HAZARDOUS)

TREATMENT AND USE AS

ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER

AT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL

Large capacity likely

Large capacity likely

Avoids irresponsible speculative accumulation
Allows material to be held until solutions
appear

Quantify the amount of available feed stock
or supply

State bans on iandfiiling CRTs

Doesn't count toward state recycling obligations

Cost

Not environmentally-friendly
Potential stigma issues

Doesn't count toward state recycling obligations
ADC may be considered a form of recycling by some,
which discourages other recycling options for CRT glass

o (Note: Different perspectives on this point)

State approval required for use as ADC
Potential stigma issues

CHEMICAL EXTRACTION

Potentially environmentally friendly process
Complete recovery of lead

New CRTs will eventually need recycling

Lack of engagement with the glass manufacturers in

recycling options for CRTs

Declining market

Shifts the lead to concrete products, which may create
legacy issue

Whether treatment process adequately prevents leaching
Permitting issues
Potential stigma issues

Limited capacity and no growth potential
o (Note: Different perspectives on this point)
Lead recovery may not be very efficient
Disposition or slag
Air emissions
Variable commodity prices
Permitting of new smelters is difficult
Few smelters in North America accept CRT glass
Perception of taking in hazardous waste
Needs longer term storage of glass

Low demand in US

Hard to export; exports can be abused as "sham reuse"
Wiring diagrams are needed to refurbish
Reused CRTs will eventually need recycling

Funding needed/Need to devise a financial structure to

account for recovery

May create a legacy issue

Competes with viable recovery technologies

Hazardous waste permit and regulations"may apply

Seen as a "kick the can down the road" approach

Not operational commercially
Could be expensive
Potentially slow and time intensive
Limited capacity

This document compiles many suggestions received during EPA's Sustainable Materials Management Electronics Reuse and Recycling Forum held on September 23,2014, and is provided for informational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.


-------