Module2

Extended Producer Responsibility: A mainstay for e-waste management

Evolution of the Concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

- The evolution of EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) took place in the context of
sustainable development, focusing on a healthy and safe environment. Most principles have been
articulated from the perspectives of environmental safety and sustainability.
- The EU began discussing environmental protection in the early 1970s, considering principles
such as:
1.Precautionary Principle
2. Prevention Principle
3. Polluter Pays Principle

The introduction of EPR was driven by the awareness that existing environmental policy
measures were insufficient to meet environmental goals (ISWA 2014). EPR was first introduced
by Thomas Lindhqvist, a professor at Lund University in Sweden, in 1990. He discussed this
policy principle to promote environmental improvements in production systems in detail in his
2000 doctoral dissertation.

During the 1990s, several European countries were preparing and implementing policy instruments
for improved management of End-of-Life (EoL) products, based on preventive environmental
strategies promoted by UNEP's Cleaner Production Programme. In 1992, Lindhqvist introduced
the formal definition of EPR and revised it in 2000 to emphasize a life cycle perspective.

EPR is a policy principle aimed at promoting environmental improvements across the entire life
cycle of a product, especially focusing on takeback, recycling, and final disposal.

Lindhqvist presented a model of EPR linking ownership with four dimensions:

1.Liability
2.Economic Responsibility
3. Physical Responsibility
4. Informative Responsibility
This model aligns with the Polluter Pays Principle and reflects life cycle costs in product pricing.
Davis Gary (1994) defined the Producer Responsibility Principle, stating that manufacturers and
importers bear responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the
product’s life cycle.

1
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

EPR aims to link the following dimensions:

1. Product system improvements, including material, design, and lifespan.
2. Design for the environment or sustainable development and Design for Disassembly (DfD)
activities.
3. A public policy framework that ensures products protect the environment through
administrative, economic, and informative instruments.

EPR applied for waste management and extended for e-waste management

• Definition: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach

where a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of
the product’s life cycle.
• EPR has been recognized as a mainstream paradigm in waste management since the early
2000s, particularly by OECD(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)
countries.

• EPR has been applied to various types of waste, including:

o Packaging waste
o Electronic and electrical equipment
o Batteries
o Bottles
o Paint cans
o Automobiles
o Waste oil
o Tyres
o Refrigerators

OECD Goals (2001):

1. Shift responsibility from municipalities and taxpayers to producers.

2. Provide incentives for producers to incorporate environmental considerations in
product design.

Evolved Goals (2016):

o Shift the burden of managing end-of-life (EoL) products from municipalities and
taxpayers to producers and ultimately consumers.
o Redefine responsibilities and incentives to encourage product redesign and reduce
waste destined for final disposal.

EPR Framework for E-Waste Management

• 2016 OECD Framework:

o EPR encompasses producer’s physical and/or financial responsibilities across all
stages of a product's life cycle, including:
▪ Environmentally compatible product design
▪ Material management goals
▪ Recycling and post-consumer management
• Producers’ Responsibilities:
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

o Producers typically cover the costs of e-waste processing, including collection,

recycling, and disposal.

EPR Instruments and Responsibilities

• Four Broad Categories of EPR Instruments:

1. Product Take-Back:
▪ A strategy often initiated voluntarily by producers.
▪ Establishes collection and recycling targets for products.
2. Economic and Market-Based Instruments:
▪ Provides financial incentives such as deposit refunds, advanced disposal
fees, material taxes, and upstream taxes/subsidies.
▪ Fees can be assessed by weight or per unit of product sold.
3. Regulations and Performance Standards:
▪ Enforce take-back responsibilities, including collection rate targets and
recycling obligations.
4. Information-Based Instruments:
▪ Mandates that producers provide information regarding product attributes
such as toxicity, safe disposal, and recyclability.
▪ Includes requirements for product labeling and related information on
websites.

Mandated EPR

• In a mandated EPR framework, producers bear the costs of the entire reverse supply chain,
which includes:
o Awareness and access-to-waste initiatives
o Collection, aggregation, transport, depollution, disposal
o Recycling, recovery, and system monitoring and regulation.

EPR: goals, implementation, and challenges for e-waste management

Goals:
Integration with Environmental Policies:
EPR should not be a stand-alone policy; it must be incorporated into a mix of environmental policy
measures (ISWA, 2014).
Comprehensive Policy Package:
EPR is conceived as a comprehensive policy package that combines various instruments to achieve
the following goals:

1. Sustainable Production, Consumption, and Waste Management:

▪ Foster a holistic approach to sustainability.
2. Incentives for Eco-Design:
▪ Encourage producers to design products that are environmentally
friendly.
3. Reduction of Landfilling:
▪ Develop channels for recycling and recovery to minimize waste
sent to landfills.
4. Full Internalization of Environmental Costs:
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

▪ Address the need for additional instruments to ensure all

environmental costs are accounted for (IGES, 2012; ISWA,
2014).

Potential Outcomes of EPR

• Waste Prevention:
o Contribute to overall waste reduction efforts.
• Use of Non-Toxic Materials and Processes:
o Promote safer materials in product manufacturing.
• Development of Closed Material Cycles:
o Encourage a circular economy by ensuring materials are reused and recycled.
• Durable Products:
o Promote the creation of longer-lasting products to reduce waste.
• Reusable and Recyclable Products:
o Increase the design and availability of products that can be reused or easily
recycled.
• Increased Reuse, Recycling, and Recovery:
o Enhance systems to ensure materials are reclaimed and recycled.
• Transfer of Waste Management Costs:
o Shift the financial burden of waste management for used products onto producers,
aligning with the Polluter Pays Principle.

Policy Instruments

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) instruments are implemented in a heterogeneous

or selective manner, influenced by the unique legal frameworks and requirements of
different countries.

Regulatory Instruments: These instruments establish legal requirements and standards that
producers must follow:

Mandatory Take-Back, Energy Efficiency Standards, Minimum Recycled Content

Standards,Secondary Material Utilization Rate Requirements, Disposal Bans and Restrictions,
Material Bans and Restrictions, Product Bans and Restrictions.

2.Economic Instruments: These instruments involve financial mechanisms that provide

incentives for producers to adopt environmentally friendly practices:Advance Disposal Fees,
Deposit/Refund Systems,Material Taxes

3. Information Instruments: These instruments focus on providing information to consumers and

producers to facilitate informed decision-making:Environmental Information Labelling,Product
Hazard Warnings, Product Durability Labelling.

EPR implemented for e-waste management under the existing regulatory frameworks in
different countries.

Policy principle requires manufacturers to accept responsibility for all stages in a product’s
lifecycle, including EoL management.
There are three primary objectives of the EPR principle:
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

1. Manufacturers shall be incentivised to improve the environmental design of their products and
the environmental performance of supplying those products.
2. Products should achieve a high utilisation rate.
3. Materials should be preserved through effective and environmentally-sound collection,
treatment, reuse, and recycling.

The primary reason for holding producers or manufacturers responsible for post-consumer product
management is that most environmental impacts are predetermined during the product's design
phase.
Broad variety in the policy measures to implement EPR, the goals, and achievements.
1. No One-Size-Fits-All Approach:
2. Effectiveness will always depend on national circumstances, conditions, priorities, and waste
streams.
3.EPR implementation is a complex topic bringing many potential challenges; therefore, more
‘practical’ or ‘operational’ aspects to be considered for successful EPR implementation.

Process of implementation
The Process to implement the EPR Concept typically involves the following three stages :
Stage 1: Identifying Policy Instrument:
• An appropriate policy instrument that embodies EPR principles is identified.
• A legislative framework is developed to formalize the concept.
Stage 2: Translating Legislation into an EPR Programme:
• The legislation is operationalized into a detailed EPR programme.
• Operational rules are set, including:
• Mechanisms to finance operations.
• Methods to monitor compliance.
• Evaluation procedures for legal adherence.
Stage 3: Executing the EPR Programme:
• The EPR programme is implemented into a practical working system.
• Effective coordination among stakeholders is required.

Multi-Agent Nature of an EPR programme, efficiency of its implementation is grately influenced

and Challenges of EPR:

Heterogeneous Perspectives:
• Efficiency in EPR implementation is influenced by differing perspectives of
various stakeholders.
• Competing interests may arise between producers and the informal sector,
particularly in e-waste collection and recycling mechanisms.

Economic Burden on Producers:

• Establishing collection and recycling mechanisms can increase the economic
burden for producers.
• Factors like facility locations, transportation, and storage costs are key
considerations in managing the reverse supply chain.
Gap Between Principle and Practice:
• The cost of compliance (e.g., collection, recycling operations) often creates a gap
between EPR in practice and what is intended by the principle or legislation.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

European Countries:
In EU countries, EPR is implemented following the WEEE Directives. Broadly, four models are
observed:
(i) Producers create one common non-profit entity that collects the necessary funding,
cooperates with local authorities and ensures recycling in the most cost-efficient and
environmental way.
(ii) (ii) ‘Dual model’ adopted –shared responsibilities between the producers and local
authorities (municipalities).A separate collection system assigned to local authorities and
the producers have full operational and financial responsibility over collection, sorting and
recycling.
(iii) ‘Shared model’ – between industry and the local authorities based on common agreements
regarding collection. and
(iv) Every PRO signed up with as many municipalities as needed to fulfil targets according to
market shares.

Asian Countries: Asian countries have formulated their own EPR regulations namely China, India,
Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Singapore.
• In a circular economy, preserving resources and creating jobs in the areas of equipment
maintenance, component refurbishment, and remanufacturing, were two major concerns
in some countries, based on which a need had emerged for collection and processing of e-
waste through direct regulation or by providing necessary incentives.
• Thus, the ‘take-back system’ as part of EPR was developed under e-waste laws in Asian
countries following the WEEE Directives.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Role of a PRO prescribed in regulatory Framework

EPR Implementation Options: Producers can implement EPR through two main pathways:
1.Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR): Producers manage their obligations independently.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

2. Collective Producer Responsibility (CPR): Producers collaborate in a group to meet EPR

requirements collectively.

PRO (Producer Responsibility Organization):

A PRO is an organization that takes on the EPR mandate on behalf of a single producer or a
collective group of producers.
The primary role of the PRO is to fulfil legal obligations related to end-of-life (EoL) waste
management, such as:
• Meeting collection, recovery, and recycling targets.
• Ensuring compliance with EPR regulations.

Key Responsibilities of PRO:

1. Stakeholder Collaboration: Works with various stakeholders to ensure proper waste

management and compliance.
2. Transparency and Accountability: Establishes systems that ensure transparency and
accountability in achieving collection and recycling goals.
3. Take-Back Channel: Establishes channels for the take-back, sorting, and recycling of
waste products.
4. Target Compliance: Ensures compliance with waste prevention and recycling targets.
5. Eco-Design Promotion: Encourages environmentally friendly product design to reduce
waste.
6. Data Verification and Reporting: Verifies data and reports to producers and government
authorities.
7. Proper Treatment: Ensures that the collected waste is treated properly.

Financial Stability of PRO:

• PROs must have a solid financial base to ensure that they can effectively meet their
responsibilities.
• Governments must establish strict authorisation processes to ensure that only financially
secure and reliable PROs are licensed.

Types of PROs:

• Some PROs operate as non-profit or profit-not-for-distribution entities with a public

service mission.
• Other PROs may operate for profit but are still expected to maximize environmental,
economic, and social benefits.

Considerations for successful implementation of EPR

• ISWA has listed eight key considerations for successful implementation of EPR; of them,
seven are relevant to e-waste management.
• The key considerations include:
(i) involvement of stakeholders in the development of EPR
(ii) clear allocation of responsibilities among all stakeholders;
(iii) producer’s choice for IPR or CPR
(iv) transparency of EPR
(v) Governmental support, monitoring, evaluation and control need to be accompanied by an
effective and efficient legal framework
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

(vi) ambitious and clever policy targets are a necessity

(vii) compensation of reasonable costs for the use of municipal infrastructure
is necessary.

1. Stakeholder Involvement:Involvement of all stakeholders in the development of EPR policies

helps in creating a solid foundation and improves both the acceptability and effectiveness of the
EPR system.

2.Clear Allocation of Responsibilities:A well-defined allocation of responsibilities among all

stakeholders is crucial to avoid conflicts of interest. While producers hold the primary
responsibility, other actors in the product chain (such as importers, wholesalers, retailers, and
consumers) as well as waste management actors (collectors and recyclers) must have specific
responsibilities.The allocation must align with policy objectives, product characteristics, and have
a clear mechanism for implementation.

3. Role of PROs and Competition:Governments need to ensure that producers do not exploit
mechanisms to gain an unfair advantage or evade responsibilities. If national legislation permits
multiple PROs (Producer Responsibility Organizations) to compete for the same waste stream, it
must ensure effective cooperation and avoid jeopardizing policy targets.Lessons from the WEEE
Directive show that combining different systems and financing models can help design incentives
for producers.

4.Transparency of EPR:Transparency is essential in EPR implementation. Since EPR is closely

linked to public service, both producers and consumers should be able to make informed
choices.Transparency can be achieved through regular reporting by producers or PROs, as well as
frequent government audits.

5.Governmental Support, Monitoring, and Evaluation:Governmental enforcement of an

effective legal framework is necessary to close loopholes and trace free riders. The legal framework
should include control mechanisms for monitoring producers’ compliance, especially in achieving
targets.Accreditation processes for PROs may be required, along with regular evaluation and
adjustment of EPR targets if necessary.

6.Ambitious and Clever Policy Targets:EPR’s fundamental goal is to increase waste collection
and recycling. Governments should set clear, qualitative and/or quantitative targets for waste
generation, collection, and recycling. Targets could apply to groups of products or specific
categories.

7.Compensation for Municipal Infrastructure Costs:Local and regional authorities should be

compensated for the use of their infrastructure in waste collection. They should not be obligated to
hand over collected waste under EPR if their reasonable costs are not covered by producers.

Challenges in implementation of EPR for e-waste management

• A key challenge for full-scale EPR implementation is ensuring that a country has the institutional
capacity to support it, such as having an effective waste-sorting system in place. In OECD
countries, clearly defined roles and responsibilities among stakeholders (e.g., public bodies, PROs)
are essential. Any overlap or ambiguity can lead to conflicts and loopholes, making governance of
EPR systems difficult. A mutual, trust-based partnership between local authorities and industry-
owned EPR organizations is crucial for successful implementation. EPR helps improve resource
efficiency by saving on virgin material and energy consumption, reducing the amount of e-waste
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

that ends up in landfills. This results in significant environmental benefits. EPR encourages
innovation in efficient production and packaging, while also creating new business opportunities
in the recycling industry. It had following Challenges
• Legal provisions related challenges
• Governance/enforcement related challenges
• Collection and recycling related challenges

Legal provisions related challenges

• Legal provisions often contain ambiguities, especially in the definition of a "producer."
This can lead to different interpretations and implementation issues. For example, the
term "producer" can refer to multinational companies, manufacturers assembling
products, or even companies selling e-products.
• If a clear definition of "producer" is not provided, it can result in confusion and hinder
the achievement of EPR goals.

Governance/enforcement related challenges

• Proper governance involves clear guidelines for all stakeholders, including producers, on
how to comply with EPR legislation.
• There needs to be a robust institutional mechanism to monitor producers’ EPR plans,
ensuring details like collection methods, costs, and compliance are well-defined.
• Challenges such as lack of political will, unclear enforcement, and the need for well-
designed policy instruments are also important governance concerns.

Collection and recycling related challenges

• E-waste collection is considered to be a great challenge as part of management. Though
the ‘take-back system’ encourages users for recycling and resource conservation, and
protection of environment, and human health, it has created a few challenges as part of the
EPR.
• A takeback system is a complex interrelated structure that has four key components:
(a) the rules that govern the system
(b) the operational areas of collection and processing
(c) financing of the system and
(d) how to control the flow of e-waste into and out of a jurisdiction.

☺Nokia’s Take-Back Success: Nokia is an exception to these challenges, having conducted two
successful take-back campaigns in India.
• In 2009, Nokia set up 1,400 secure bins in its Care Centres and branded retail stores
across four Indian cities, collecting 160 tonnes of e-waste (mainly mobile phones)
in 45 days.
• In 2012, Nokia collected 65 tonnes of mobile phones for recycling.
As part of its environmental responsibility, Nokia planted a tree for every phone collected,
showcasing a successful corporate initiative under EPR. This highlights how businesses can take a
proactive approach, known as the Ecosystem Approach, to fulfil their environmental
responsibility through EPR frameworks.

Risks of compliance and adverse consequences: If detailed guidelines and standards are not
provided for collection and recycling, the goals of resource recovery may suffer.

1. Lack of Detailed Guidelines:

E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

o Without detailed guidelines and standards for collection and recycling, the goals
of resource recovery may suffer.
o Essential guidelines include:
▪ Awareness among stakeholders about compliance requirements.
▪ Periodic monitoring and mechanisms for compliance.
o In the absence of effective monitoring and evaluation, there is a risk of "paper
trading" in the name of compliance, leading to large-scale e-waste leakage.
2. Targeting a Single Stakeholder:
o If policy instruments focus on just one primary stakeholder, compliance risks
increase.
o Effective compliance involves recycling subsidies, disposal fees, and command
and control standards to manage externalities and ensure efficiency.
o Cost allocation, managing uncertainties, and ensuring education and outreach are
critical to achieving compliance under EPR.
3. Producers' Responsibilities:
o Producers bear the costs of collection, aggregation, transportation, storage, and
recycling. If these costs aren't shared with municipalities or government agencies,
compliance motivation is reduced, especially in developing countries where
informal sectors play a significant role in operations.
o Investment in resource recovery and the management of secondary materials
require careful coordination between formal and informal actors to reduce
compliance risks.
4. Economic Challenges for Producers:
o Coordination among entities is difficult for compliance, especially in establishing
collection centers, ensuring adequate e-waste collection, and setting up effective
incentives for consumers.
o Collection and recycling can become financially unviable, adding extra layers of
administration. Producers are often focused on minimizing compliance costs,
which can lead to cutting corners and lobbying to reduce future collection targets.

In conclusion, compliance risks stem from the lack of clear guidelines, inadequate monitoring,
financial disincentives, and the reluctance of producers to bear the full costs of EPR
implementation, especially in countries with informal sectors playing a key role in waste
management.

Challenges faced by PROs: PROs, or Producer Responsibility Organizations, help producers

follow EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) laws by managing e-waste systems and ensuring
compliance. However, choosing a PRO is a challenge because they are usually selected for only a
short time (one or two years), making it hard for them to create long-term solutions.

The success of PROs depends on how well EPR is carried out and how advanced the e-waste sector
is. Producers need to think long-term and support the development of recycling systems. In many
developing countries, PROs are not common, which affects their performance, especially in
collecting e-waste. A lot of e-waste ends up in the informal sector, which causes problems. PROs,
stuck between producers and the government, often face criticism due to issues with transparency.

Experts also note that problems like identifying producers, illegal e-waste imports, a large informal
sector, and weak regulations make it hard for EPR to work effectively in developing countries.

Impact of EPR:
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

The impact of EPR is one of the least explored areas, with very few studies addressing it. In many
countries, the informal sector, which pays for different types of scrap, including e-waste,
dominates. This has made it difficult to properly implement EPR.

Research by the European Commission on 36 case studies of EPR in the EU showed that in most
cases, the costs for collecting, transporting, and treating waste were covered by the EPR system.
However, how much of these costs are covered by producers varies greatly and depends on factors
like the division of responsibilities among stakeholders and the national EPR policies.

In a study by Bhaskar and Turaga (2017), they examined the impact of the E-waste
Management Rules, 2011. They found that while EPR regulations made producers take some
action (like following cheaper parts of the rules), the collection and recycling systems were not
made convenient for consumers to deposit their e-waste at formal centres.

EPR and e-waste management in India

The EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) in India was first introduced through
the E-waste Management Rules, 2011. These rules outlined the responsibilities for
producers of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) regarding the handling of e-
waste:

• Producers were required to collect e-waste generated during the manufacturing

process.
• E-waste had to be channeled to registered dismantlers or recyclers.
• Producers were responsible for setting up collection centers or a take-back
system, either individually or collectively.
• They were also tasked with financing and organizing the system to manage e-
waste in an environmentally sound manner (ESM) once it reached its end of
life (EoL).

However, the EPR rules did not specify any collection or recycling targets in terms of
weight or item-wise requirements, leaving a gap in effective implementation.

Key Features of Nokia's Campaigns:

1. Campaign Execution:
o Take-back campaigns for mobile phones were held in 2009 and 2012.
o Nokia promised to plant a tree for every handset collected and to ensure
all old phones and accessories were properly recycled.
o Result: Over 50 tonnes of mobiles were collected, and 60,000 trees were
planted.
2. Campaign Branding:
o The campaign was branded as “Planet ke Rakhwaale” (Protectors of the
Planet).
o This platform brought together a community of people willing to take
action for environmental protection, starting with mobile phone
recycling.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Experiences of EPR and take-back campaign by Nokia in 2009 and 2012

• Between formal and informal operations for collection to recycling, the Nokia mobile
company’s example is often quoted among the industry actors, in the broader context of
EPR and take-back systems, which could be more effective when ‘brand environmental
responsibility’ (BER) adopts ‘ecosystem approach’ reasoned Singhal (2010).
• Nokia organised take-back campaigns for mobile phones in 2009 and 2012, in different
phases.
Nokia's Consumer Survey on Recycling:

• A survey conducted by Nokia covering 6,500 respondents across 13

countries highlighted significant consumer attitudes and behaviours around mobile
phone recycling:
o 74% of respondents didn’t think about recycling their phones, but 72%
believed recycling helps the environment.
o In India specifically, 84% of respondents did not consider recycling unwanted
devices, and 83% didn’t know how mobiles were recycled or whether recycled
materials could be used to make new products.

Factors Identified for a Successful Recycling Ecosystem (Singhal, 2010):

• Ease and Incentive for Consumers: Consumers need easy access to recycling systems
and proper incentives for recycling in an environmentally responsible way.
• Information Systems: Consumers need access to clear information on:
o Why they should recycle,
o How they should recycle,
o When they should recycle, and
o The benefits of recycling for society and the environment.
• Environmental Awareness: A critical factor is the level of existing environmental
awareness and societal momentum toward environmental protection.
• Recycling Infrastructure: Adequate recycling infrastructure is necessary to support the
collection and proper disposal of e-waste.
• Regulatory Framework: The survey results influenced the government to enact e-waste
management legislation, acknowledging the importance of regulations in fostering
responsible recycling practices.

Effectiveness of EPR Post-Rules 2011 in India: The evaluation of the effectiveness of Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) in India after the implementation of the E-waste Management
Rules in 2011 has been analysed by Toxics Link in 2014 and 2015. The study assessed the roles
and responsibilities of producers and regulatory agencies regarding e-waste management.
Evaluation Methodology:

• Brands Analysed: A total of 50 brands were evaluated based on their actions towards
fulfilling their responsibilities under the Rules.
• Data Collection:
o 2014 Study: Used secondary data (websites, helplines).
o 2015 Study: Combined primary data (interviews) with secondary data (websites,
social media, print materials).
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Key Findings (2014):

• Performance Ratings:
o 17 companies received a "bad performance" rating.
o 15 companies were rated "not so good."
o 11 companies achieved "fair performance."
o 7 companies scored "good performance."
• Defaulters: Cell phone companies were the biggest offenders, with 17 out of
50 companies rated poorly.

Key Findings (2015):

• Performance Ratings:
o 18 companies earned a "bad performance."
o 15 companies were rated "not so good."
o 15 companies achieved "fair performance."
o 3 companies scored "good performance."
• Trends: Many cell phone companies continued to perform poorly.
• Compliance: Companies that adhered to RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances)
scored better. Three companies (Lenovo, Microsoft, Ricoh) maintained their good
performance from 2014.

Awareness Survey (Toxics Link, 2016):

• Survey Details: Conducted in 2015 with 2,030 respondents from five cities (Delhi,
Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru).
• E-Waste Awareness:
o 50% of respondents were familiar with the term e-waste, with the highest
awareness in Mumbai and the lowest in Kolkata, Delhi, and Chennai.
o 66% of respondents had no knowledge of the E-waste Management Rules.
o Among the aware respondents, 12% had heard of the rules but did not know the
details.
• Responsibility for E-Waste Management:
o Respondents believed that all stakeholders (government, producers, consumers)
are responsible for e-waste management.
o Many respondents from Kolkata viewed the government as the only responsible
party.
• Toxicity Awareness:
o 90% of Mumbai respondents were unaware of e-waste toxicity, while
respondents in Chennai were fully aware.
• Sources of Information:
o 34% of respondents relied on newspapers.
o 22% used media.
o 16% consulted the internet.
o 14% learned from friends.
o 11% referred to product manuals.

Disposal Practices:

• Disposal Methods:
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

o 51% of respondents handed e-waste to kabaadiwalas, likely leading to informal

sector recycling.
o 36% discarded e-waste in the second-hand market.
o 16% gave it to friends or family.
o Only 0.7% handed it over to licensed recyclers.
• Health and Environmental Awareness:
o 61% of EEE (Electrical and Electronic Equipment) users were unaware of the
hazardous nature of e-waste.
o Awareness was lowest in Kolkata, with 50% awareness reported in Bengaluru.
o Approximately 30% of total respondents understood that e-waste could
negatively impact health and the environment.

Regional Initiatives:

• States such as Kerala, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana have taken initiatives for
implementing EPR under the Rules, 2016.

TOXICITY AND IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH

Toxicity,Recycling and regulations

• Toxicity arises from hazardous and non-hazardous substances, chemicals, and

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in e-products and e-waste.
• Effects of toxicity include:
o Cancer
o Nervous system malfunction
o Respiratory system damage
o Reproductive issues
• Recycling is a key focus because it affects both environmental and health
concerns. There’s a debate whether e-waste recycling is an "economic boom or an
environmental doom" (Oteng-Ababio 2012).
• Legal framework for toxicity is defined, but enforcement depends on:
o Product design (ease of disassembly, hazardousness)
o Productivity and cost of recycling
o Recycling technology availability
o Ensuring safe disposal with minimal environmental impact (soil and water
contamination)

o
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Role of Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) in E-Waste

• PCBs are essential components of almost all e-products and contribute to 30% of
total e-waste.
• Made up of:
o Metals (lead, mercury, etc.)
o Non-metals (ceramics, fiber glass)
o Organic substances (resins)
• Toxicological impact: PCB disposal can lead to harmful chemicals leaching into
the soil, water, and air.

Environmental Impact of E-Waste

• Hazardous nature: A large portion of e-waste is considered hazardous due to toxic

substances and pollutants.
• E-waste accumulation: E-waste is non-biodegradable and accumulates in:
o Soil
o Air
o Water bodies
o Living organisms
• Health impacts: Pollutants enter the human food chain through:
o Water sources
o Livestock, fish, and crops
• Disposal concerns:
o Landfills: Toxic metals and chemicals leach into the soil.
o Burning at low temperatures: Emission of harmful dioxins from PVC
components.
o Open dumping: Directly contaminates soil and water bodies, affecting both
workers and the environment.

. Health and Environmental Hazards from End-of-Life E-Products

• Methods of handling e-waste (open dismantling, shredding, burning, leaching) cause

environmental and health hazards.
o Soil, air, and water contamination occurs due to improper disposal and lack of
regulations.
• Incineration: Releases toxic gases (GHG) and mercury, posing serious environmental
risks.

Toxicity During Recycling Processes

• Three key groups of harmful substances released during recycling:

1. Original constituents: Lead, mercury, etc., which are part of the equipment.
2. Substances added: Cyanide, for recovery processes.
3. Substances formed during recycling: Dioxins (formed when PVC is
incinerated at low temperatures).
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Testing Methods for Toxicity and Leaching Effects

• Common testing methods for toxic substances leaching from e-waste:

o Milli Q (MQ) water
o Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedures (SPLP): A mild leaching agent.
o Toxicity Characterization Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
o Waste Extraction Test (WET)
• Most studies are laboratory-based, and there is a lack of field research.
• Focus has been on specific products, such as:
o Cell phones (feature and smart)
o PCBs
o Computers

Significance of Recycling Technique and Technology in E-Waste Management.

Recycling occupies critical space in the discourse of e-waste management, and is considered to be
the best possible solution. With proper recycling, recoverable resources are collected, which further
save other resources, such as, energy, water, and other material footprints; also boost economy.
Consequently, the reduction in landfill may result into reduction in toxic effects on environment,
and human health. Landfilling has been the least favourable waste management option, mainly
because proper treatment to e-waste reduces release of toxins; lesser the toxicity, lesser the adverse
impacts on environment, and human health.

Recycling Importance:

• A crucial technique in e-waste management with significant benefits for the economy,
environment, and society.

Key Takeaway:

• Recycling is a sustainable, energy-efficient, and eco-friendly solution for managing e-

waste.

Environmental Concerns in E-Waste Management

UNEP Report Overview (2010)The UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)

Report (2010) titled Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and
Production: Priority Products and Materials focuses on how various economic activities
impact natural resource usage and pollution generation.
The report examines the economy through three perspectives:

• Production
• Consumption
• Resources

These are viewed alongside environmental issues such as:

• Climate change
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

• Water use
• Toxic emissions
• Use of fossil fuels for heating
• Production and use of electrical appliances which lead to the depletion of fossil
energy, contributing to climate change and pollution.

Life Cycle Impact of E-Waste

• Life Cycle Thinking: This approach looks at the entire life cycle of a product,
from production to disposal, and how it impacts the environment and human
health.
• Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): Evaluates the environmental impacts
associated with all stages of a product's life, especially e-waste.

Key Data:

• 97% of life cycle waste is generated during the production of input

materials (Miliute-Plepiene & Youhanan, 2019).

Environmental and Health Impacts of E-Waste

E-waste toxicity is described from two frameworks:

1. Life Cycle Thinking (LCIA): Measures environmental impacts across the

product life cycle, such as:
o Resource use
o Global warming potential
o Energy and water consumption
o Carbon footprint
2. Regulatory Provisions:
o International agreements like the Basel Convention, which regulates the
transboundary movement of e-waste.
o The RoHS Directive (EU) restricts the use of harmful elements (lead,
cadmium, mercury, etc.) in electronic devices.

Informal Recycling and Toxicity

• In many countries, informal recycling methods cause significant environmental

and health hazards due to poor handling of toxic materials.
• Countries like Guiyu (China) and Ghana (Africa) face severe environmental
degradation due to unregulated e-waste processing, leading to a crisis level of
pollution.

Role of E-Product Design

• Design for Environment (DfE): Simplifying the design of e-products can help reduce
environmental toxicity.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

o Better Assembly & Disassembly: If materials in e-products are easier to

disassemble, recycling becomes safer and more efficient.
o This approach can minimize the environmental impact of dismantling e-waste.

Environmental Impact Factors from Life Cycle Perspective

• Climate Change: Manufacturing and use of e-products directly contribute to global

warming.
• Water Use: Significant water is consumed in the production and recycling of e-products.
• Energy Consumption: High energy use in manufacturing leads to an increased carbon
footprint.
• Pollution: E-waste affects air, soil, and water quality, leading to issues like:
o Acidification
o Eutrophication
o General pollution
• Human Health Impacts: Exposure to toxins in e-waste causes health risks such as:
o Carcinogenic effects (cancer-causing)
o Mutagenic impacts (genetic mutations)
o Reprotoxic issues (affects reproduction)
o Bioaccumulation (toxins accumulate in organisms over time)

Regulatory Frameworks and Thresholds

• Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLC): Regulatory frameworks set the

maximum permissible levels for hazardous elements in e-waste in different countries.
• Adherence to these thresholds is crucial to minimize environmental and health risks.

Production process, treatment to e-waste, and its impact on environment

Environmental concerns are resource use, global warming potential, energy consumption, water
use, carbon footprints, potentials for damaging ozone layer (GHG emissions), deteriorating soil and
water quality, etc. Global warming could be alculated for the life cycle stages of a product or service
based on CO2 equivalent (or carbon equivalent) emission; ecological footprints, etc.
The ecological footprint can also be expressed in units like water intensity, total material
requirement, and total amount of waste. Different environmental impacts are induced from the
generation of air emissions, effluents, and waste Every e-product has the highest footprint in the
group in terms of waste.
For instance, the life cycle of one smartphone is associated with the production of 86 kg of waste
(Miliute-Plepiene and Youhanan 2019: 16). The digitalisation across the world has added more
than 1.5 billion mobile phone units in 2017 accounting for 225,000 tons of material usage during
manufacturing
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Mapping of Environmental impacts of a cell phone

E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

• Energy Consumption Across the Mobile Phone Lifecycle

• Material Extraction:
o 23 MJ (megajoules) of energy is required to extract materials for one mobile
phone.
o Key materials: copper, gold, silver, alongside hazardous metals like lead (Pb),
cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), arsenic (As), nickel (Ni), and chromium (Cr).
• Component Manufacturing:
o 120 MJ of energy is consumed in manufacturing components such as integrated
circuits (ICs), capacitors, and resistors.
• Assembly:
o Total energy consumption for assembling a mobile phone is around 2 MJ.
• Packaging and Transportation:
o 30 MJ is assumed for packaging and transportation.

• Material Composition:

• Mobile phones contain various valuable metals such as copper, gold, silver, and some
toxic metals including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), arsenic (As), nickel
(Ni), and chromium (Cr).
• Rare earth elements: Neodymium, terbium, and dysprosium are also involved in mobile
phone production, with approximately half of the elements in the periodic table being
used (UNEMG 2017: 140).

• Resource Recovery Through Recycling:

• A tonne of old phones (without batteries) yields 300 g of gold.

• 1 g of gold can be recovered from around 35–40 mobile phones (Dave Holwell,
University of Leicester).
• Recycling 1 million mobile phones can recover:
o 9,072 kg (20,000 lbs) of copper
o 250 kg (550 lbs) of silver
o 22.6 kg (50 lbs) of gold
o 9 kg (20 lbs) of palladium (www.ban.org).

Carbon Emissions:

• In 2009, 2.7 billion mobile phones in use accounted for around 125 million tonnes of
CO2e, which is 0.25% of global emissions (Berners-Lee 2010).
• Apple iPhone emissions: Produces 70 kg of carbon particles, with 81% of those
emissions occurring during the manufacturing phase.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by Life Cycle Stage:

• 80% of GHG emissions arise from raw material extraction and production.
• 14% of emissions are due to mobile phone usage.
• Only 1% of emissions result from end-of-life (EoL) treatment (ILO 2019).

Mapping of environmental impacts of a computer

E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Computers have become an integral part of modern life, but their production and disposal have
significant environmental consequences. Understanding these impacts is essential for promoting
sustainable practices in the technology sector.

CO2 Emissions

• Manufacturing Emissions:
o Producing one tonne of laptops can emit up to 10 tonnes of CO2.
o Source: PACE and WEF 2019: 13

Resource Consumption

• Materials for One Computer and Monitor:

o Fossil Fuels: 530 lbs (240 kg)
o Chemicals: 48 lbs (21.8 kg)
o Water: 1.5 tons (approximately 1,360 kg)
o These figures highlight the extensive resource use involved in computer
production.
• Desktop Computer Manufacturing:
o Takes 245 kg of fossil fuels, 22 kg of chemicals, and 1,500 litres of water.
o Source: Kuehr et al. 2003
o Waste Production

• Waste Generated:
o Each laptop produces approximately 1,200 kg of waste over its entire life cycle.
o In total, 500 million PCs contribute to:
▪ 2,872,000 tonnes of plastics
▪ 718,000 tonnes of lead
▪ 1,363 tonnes of cadmium
▪ 287 tonnes of mercury
o Source: Puckett et al. 2002: 437

Energy Consumption Over Life Cycle

• Total Life Cycle Energy Burden:

o The life cycle energy consumption of a computer is about 5,600
MJ (megajoules).
o Energy Distribution:
▪ Only 34% of energy is consumed during the use phase.
▪ The majority of energy is consumed during mining, manufacturing,
packaging, and transportation.

Composition of Computers

• Mineral Content:
o An average computer consists of over 30 different minerals, including:
▪ Silica, iron, aluminum, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, tin, selenium,
manganese, arsenic, and cadmium.
o These minerals are extracted from the earth, often through environmentally
damaging practices.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Recycling and Its Benefits

• Energy Savings from Recycling:

o Recycling one million laptops saves enough energy to power 3,657 homes for a
year.
• Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction:
o Proper waste treatment and disposal can significantly reduce GHG emissions.
o For instance, reusing and recycling 40 personal computers can prevent CO2
emissions equivalent to that from 2.1 barrels of oil.
o Source: Agarwal and Mullick 2014: 8

Fossil Fuel Use in Production

• The amount of fossil fuels used to produce a computer is approximately nine times the
computer’s weight, indicating a heavy reliance on fossil resources.

Environmental Impact of Mining Precious Metals

• Significant CO2 Emissions from Mining:

o Producing one tonne of precious metals (gold, palladium, platinum) generates
about 10,000 tons of CO2emissions.
• Annual Demand and Emissions:
o In 2007, the demand for gold in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) was
approximately 300 tonnes, leading to total gold-induced emissions of 5.1 million
tons.
o Average emissions generated from mining are around 17,000 tons of CO2 per
tonne of gold mined.

Mapping of environmental Impacts of a CRT monitor.

There were 83.3 million CRT monitors by 2002 in the market across the globe; they begin to replace
by LCD (liquid crystal display) monitors. There are 14 processes involved in producing, using, and
disposing of a CRT.
The major components of the complete CRT monitor are the tube, plastic casing, and associated
PWB assemblies. The glass components contain approximately 70% lead oxide. The total number
of inventory items for the CRT profile was 770; of them, almost 274 chemicals were classified as
potentially toxic. Overall, 18,000 MJ of energy was reported per CRT monitor produced within the
manufacturing stage; roughly 87% of this can be attributed to the glass manufacturing energy alone.
During production, carbon monoxide released from the production of LPG was the top contributor
at 22%, followed by nitrogen oxides (9%) from electricity generation in the use stage, and by
arsenic (9%) in the production of lead that is eventually used in the CRT glass, and phosphorus
(6%) and fluorides (4%).
The average 14-inch monitor uses a tube that contains an estimated 2.5–4 kg of lead. One CRT
television or computer monitor can contain 4–8 pounds of lead’.

Linkages between resource recovery and improvement in environment

• The environmental footprint of recycling is much smaller than for primary production for
example, aluminium recycling uses only 1/20 of the energy required for primary
production.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

• The environmental impacts per kilogram for the production of precious metals (silver,
gold, platinum, and palladium) is higher than for base metals (iron, copper, aluminium,
lead, and nickel); yet recovery of both types of metals may yield a commercial profit, which
may generate a new scope of work for the new generation.
• An example of PCBs is presented here as a resource and as a hazardous object.
• Among environmental concerns, saving CO2 emission is one of the major considerations.
Therefore, harvesting the resources from used e-products substantially less carbondioxide
emissions than mining in the earth’s crust is preferred as part of e-waste management.
• The below example presents an example of PCB

E-waste Recycling chain

E-waste recycling chain comprises of four main steps:

(i) Collection
(ii) pre-processing (sorting – classification, separation/manual dismantling or
disassembly,8 depollution)
(iii) end-processing that includes physical and chemical processing and
(iv) refining process.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

• First stage of recycling is collection from consumers once the EEE have reached their EoL.
This phase is crucial, as this ensures that the collected e-waste is not mixed with others;
and less dependent on technical solution, and highly influenced by socioeconomic factors,
such as level of awareness and disposal by the users,awareness and integrity of vendors
who provide least cannibalised e-waste, and so on.
• Second stage, de-pollution process includes one or several shredding pro-cesses aimed at
reducing the size of devices and elimination of potentially hazardous components. Once
reduced in size, the shredded components in e-waste undergo mechanical sorting, where
different sorting technologies are applied.
Miliute-Plepiene and Youhanan has provided details about what is achieved at the end of this stage,
and what happened to the residues, as follow, in the pre-processing stage four groups of materials
are extracted:
(i) hazardous materials (e.g. batteries),
(ii) valuable components, which could be reused/resold on the market after dismantling,
(iii) valuable recyclable materials (copper, aluminium, plastics) that will be sold for further material
recovery, and
(iv) residues nonhazardous materials (ceramics, some plastics etc.), that are not suitable for
recycling.
• During the third stage – physical recycling, usually – size reduction takes place through
disassembling, dismantling, chopping, shredding, crushing etc. Also, physical separation
of ferrous and non-ferrous parts takes place vis-à-vis magnetic parts, current connecting
parts, electro-static, etc. For chemical recycling, different methods are employed, such as,
magnetic method for recovering ferrous fractions (iron, nickel, and cobalt), gasification,
melting process, hydro metallurgy and bio-metallurgy.
During refining processes, plastics, fuels, oil-based resins, metals, glass, methanol, filler
materials, and phenolic composites are separated. Non-recyclable materials usually end up in
waste incinerators or landfills.

Mainly three kinds of substances are released during recycling:

(i) the substances used in manufacturing of electrical and electronic equipment;
(ii) those substance are used in recycling process (auxiliary substances); and
(iii) by-products, which are formed during the transformation of primary constituents.
The by-products are: fly ashes, fine particles, fumes, waste water, etc; of them, fly ashes, fine
particles, and fumes are transported to other places via air while waste water becomes - leachate/
effluent and contaminate surface and the sediments contaminate ground waste.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Recycling and Risks

Hazardous substances may pose significant human health and environmental risks. Toxic
substances can be found within the following types of emissions or outputs:
(i) leachates from dumping activities;
(ii) particulate matter (coarse and fine particles) from dismantling activities;
(iii) fly and bottom ashes from burning activities;
(iv) fumes from mercury amalgamate “cooking,” de-soldering and other burning
activities;
(v) wastewater from dismantling and shredding facilities;
(vi) Effluents from cyanide leaching and other leaching activities. Among them,
most researchers have expressed concern about manual disassembly, and acid-leaching
operations for value of valuable components from wires and cables, CRTs, and PCB.

• A particular hazard associated with the disassembly stage is the possibility of accidental
release and spillage of hazardous substances upon breakage of the shell, such as mercury,
which is found within light sources as well as switches.
• The primary hazards of mechanical treatment methods are associated with the size
reduction and separation steps, which can generate dusts from plastics, metals, ceramics,
and silica.
• Open-air storage raises concerns regarding the possibility of lead and other substances
leaching out into the environment.
• Toxic Link report has mentioned potential hazards of e-waste recycling by informal
sector in India. While breaking and removal of copper yoke CRTs, lead, barium, and
other heavy metals leach into groundwater.
• During PCB disordering and removing computer chips, air emission of these substances
remains in air for long time; and while processing dismantled PCBs, that is, open-air
burning to remove the metals, tin and lead contaminate immediate environment including
surface and ground waters, and brominated dioxins, beryllium, cadmium, and mercury
emissions take place.
• For treating chips and other gold plated components, chemical stripping method (using
nitric and hydrochloric acid), along river banks Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, brominated
substances, etc. are discharged directly into river or left on the banks, which acidifies the
river destroying fish and flora.

Human health concerns

E-waste, toxicity, and its impact on human health

• 76% of workers in informal recycling operations in India suffer from respiratory ailments
like asthma, bronchitis, choking, coughing, irritation, breathing difficulties and tremors
among others.
• This is primarily due to primitive and polluting methods of processing e-waste, lack of
safety measures, awareness, and negligence.
• Complex processes are employed for recycling of e-waste in India, such as,
1.manual disassembly,
2.heating PCBs to recover solder and chips,
3.acid extraction of metals rom complex mixtures,
4.melting and extruding plastics, and
5. burning plastics to isolate metals.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

6.Mixtures of concentrated nitric acid and hydrochloric acids are used for the extraction of gold
and copper respectively.
Various volatile compounds of nitrogen and chlorine are known to be emitted during such
processes. The heating of PCB for de-soldering and removal of chips exposes workers to fumes
of metals, particularly those in solder (often lead and tin), and other hazardous substances that can
be potentially released.
• Three most prevalent and hazardous technologies for treating e-waste adversely impact
environment and human health.
1. Incineration
2. Open-air burning
3. Landfilling

Incineration: Incineration is a process of destroying waste through burning. The gases released
during the burning and the residue ash are often toxic, especially when incineration, or co-
incineration of e-waste with neither prior treatment nor sophisticated flue gas purification.
Studies of municipal solid waste incineration plants have shown that copper, which is present in
PCBs and cables, acts as a catalyst for dioxin formation when flame retardants are incinerated.

Open-air burning: Open burning is used mostly for waste disposal, at relatively low temperature;
this is far more polluting than controlled incineration process.
Inhalation of open fire emissions can trigger asthma attacks, respiratory infections, and cause
other problems such as, chest pain, coughing, wheezing, and eye irritation.
Chronic exposure to open fire emissions may lead to diseases such as emphysema (lung condition
that causes shortness of breath) and cancer. Open-air burning of PVC releases hydrogen chloride,
which on inhalation mixes with water in the lungs to form hydrochloric acid, which may lead to
corrosion of the lung tissues, and other respiratory complications.
open fires burn with a lack of oxygen, forming carbon monoxide, which poisons the blood when
inhaled. The residual ash becomes airborne, and is dangerous if inhaled

Landfilling: One of the most widely used methods of waste disposal; it is well known that all
landfills leak. The leachate (cadmium, lead, and mercury) often contain heavy metals and other
toxic substances that contaminate groundwater resources.
Even state-of-the-art landfills, which are sealed to prevent toxins from entering the ground, are
not completely tight in the long-term.
There are three major concerns regarding landfills and its impact on environment are – its leach,
vaporization effects, and its proneness to uncontrollable open fires and release of toxic fumes.
Older landfill sites and uncontrolled dumps pose a much greater danger of releasing hazardous
emissions.

Historical Mapping of Toxicity, Environment, and Human Health in E-Waste Management

• Despite stringent regulations, 75% of generated e-waste remains unaccounted for.

• E-waste is often exported internationally to regions with informal recycling practices,
notably in China, India, and Ghana.

Key Findings from Studies

1. Greenpeace Study (2008):

o Severe chemical contamination found in soil and sediment samples
at Agbogbloshie and Korforidua, Ghana.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

o Samples showed high levels of toxic metals and persistent organic pollutants.
o Similar contamination patterns reported in China, India, and Russia.
2. Increased Toxic Exposure:
o Studies from the 1990s and early 2000s indicated higher exposure to toxic
chemicals from e-waste recycling, affecting both workers and nearby residents.
o Specific toxins include:
▪ Chlorinated dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs)
▪ Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
▪ Lead
o Notable observations:
▪ In China, children near recycling sites showed elevated lead levels
compared to those in neighboring areas.
▪ Workers in electronics recycling facilities in Europe exhibited higher
PBDE levels than the general population.

Routes of Exposure to Toxic Chemicals

• Inhalation: Breathing in dust or fumes during e-waste processing.

• Dust Ingestion: Accidental ingestion of contaminated dust.
• Dermal Exposure: Skin contact with toxic substances.
• Oral Intake: Consumption of contaminated food or water.

Health Risks and Occupational Hazards

• Potential occupational hazards include:

o Silicosis: Lung disease caused by inhaling silica dust.
o Toxic Exposure: Risks from dioxins, mercury, and other carcinogens.
o Electrical Shocks: Risk during e-waste handling.
• Specific concerns for children:
o Increased exposure through hand-to-mouth transfer of contaminated soil or
dust.

Environmental Contamination

• Toxic metals can accumulate in the soil due to e-waste processing, leading to long-term
environmental issues.
• Examples:
o Cadmium: Adheres to organic matter, can be taken up by plants, entering the
food chain.
o Chromium: Deposits in soil and water, potentially contaminating groundwater.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

• Include substances like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), brominated flame

retardants (BFRs), PVC, and CFCs.
• Characteristics:
o Persistent in the environment.
o Highly toxic.
o Bioaccumulable (they accumulate in living organisms).
o Capable of long-distance transport.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Table 3.4 summarises with four columns: (i) type of elements16 – halogenated compounds, heavy
and other metals, and others; (ii) occurrence in EEE; (iii) how contamination takes place – which
process and through which part of human body; and (iv) details about toxicity and its impact on
human health. Thus, every element is linked with its occurrence in EEE, how that element is
entering human body, and its impact human health.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Informal Recycling Operations, Toxicity, and Health Hazards in India:

Informal Sector: Plays a significant role in treating e-waste, focusing on resource

recovery. However, rudimentary methods used by informal recyclers lead to:

o Health hazards due to exposure to toxic substances.

o Low resource recovery compared to advanced scientific methods.
o Landfill pollution, contaminating soil and water with heavy metals like
lead, mercury, and cadmium.

Environmental and Health Impact

• Informal recycling activities contribute to high levels of environmental pollution,

with e-waste often ending up in landfills. Soil, air dust, and human hair are
tested for metal concentrations at recycling sites to measure contamination levels.

Collection, Storage, and Transportation of E-Waste

• Safe practices are required for these operations, but they are often neglected in the
informal sector. The real focus of existing studies is on the recycling processes
themselves.

Dismantling and Segregation Processes

• Dismantling and segregation of e-waste into components like electronics, glass,

and plastics are relatively safer compared to recycling processes.
• The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009) report highlights
that deep-level manual dismantling is preferred in the informal sector, as it
separates purer fractions for reuse, making it economically viable for developing
countries due to low labor costs.

Informal Pre-Processing Technologies

• Manual dismantling is seen as beneficial for preparing materials for further

processing in recycling or reuse.
• However, other informal recycling activities, like burning, open-air
dismantling, and acid baths, pose major environmental and social risks.

Barriers in E-Waste Management

• Legal Issues: Lack of defined roles and responsibilities for stakeholders.

• Technology and Skills: Limited access to technology and trained labor.
• Business and Finance: Recycling operations are not properly funded, making it
difficult to compete with informal operations.
E-Waste Management 7th Sem Module 2

Toxins Released During E-Waste Recycling

1. Heavy Metals: Lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium can leach into soil and
water, contaminating ecosystems.
2. Dioxins and Furans: Released during the burning of plastics and cables.
3. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Commonly found in older electronics, these
chemicals are persistent and bio accumulative.

Human Health Hazards

• Workers in informal recycling sites are exposed to toxic fumes during activities
like burning plastics or using acid baths to extract metals.
• Health impacts include:
o Respiratory illnesses: Caused by inhaling toxic fumes and dust.
o Skin and eye irritation: From handling toxic materials without proper
protection.
o Heavy metal poisoning: Long-term exposure to substances like lead can
result in neurological damage and developmental problems in children.

E-Waste Recycling in China, India, and Pakistan

• Informal e-waste recycling practices are widespread and highly polluting in these
countries.
o Open burning of plastic waste: Produces toxic air pollutants.
o Toxic solders: Used in electronics can release harmful fumes.
o River dumping of acids: Acid baths used for extracting metals are often
dumped into water bodies, contaminating local water supplies.