<-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. ------- |