LAW MANTRA THINK BEYOND OTHERS

(National Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321 6417)

E -Waste: A Growing Global Environmental Problem
Abstract
In present time e-wastes are creating a massive global environmental and health
problem. Rapid economic growth, coupled with urbanization and growing demand
for consumer goods, has increased both the consumption of electrical and
electronic equipment (EEE) and the production of waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE), which can be a source of hazardous wastes that pose a risk to
the environment and to sustainable economic growth. Disposal of E-wastes is an
unembellished problem faced by many regions across the globe. Electronic wastes
that are land filled produces contaminated leachates which eventually pollute the
groundwater. The main aim of this study was to analyze the problem of E-Waste which
are growing globally in present time and comparative study of existing legislations of
various major countries involved in production and consumption of E-Waste.
1. Introduction
In present time e-wastes are creating a massive global environmental and health
problem. The electronic industry is the worlds largest and fastest growing
manufacturing industry [2]. In recent decades, the use of electronic and electrical
devices has increased significantly, leading to rapidly rising amounts of waste electrical
and electronic equipment (WEEE), often also called e-waste, throughout the world. If
we study closely e-waste is one of the fastest growing pollution problems. With the
increase in consumption of electronic goods and also with their usage pattern the
generation of e-waste also increases [1]. E-waste contains valuable materials such as
aluminum, copper, gold, palladium and silver, it also contains harmful substances like
cadmium, lead and mercury. In the absence of suitable techniques and protective
measures, recycling e-waste can result in toxic emissions to the air, water and soil and
pose a serious health and environmental hazards. Rapid economic growth, coupled
with urbanization and growing demand for consumer goods, has increased both
the consumption of EEE and the production of WEEE, which can be a source of
hazardous wastes that pose a risk to the environment and to sustainable economic
growth [3]. Electronic Waste is simply known as e-waste. Electronic waste is term


used to describe old, end of life electronic appliances, such as- computer VCRs, DVD
players, mobile phones, fax machines laptops, mp3 players etc. which have been
disposed by their original users. E-waste contains hazardous constituent that may
negatively impact the environment and affect human health if not properly managed.
Disposal of e-waste is an being global environmental and public health issue, as this
waste has become the most rapidly growing segment of the normal municipal waste
stream in the world. E-waste contains hazardous constituent that may negatively impact
the environment and affect human health if not properly managed. Due to lack of
adequate infrastructure to manage wastes safely, these wastes are buried, burnt in the
open air or dumped into surface water bodies. E-waste poses the most direct health
risks when it degrades and the internal chemicals are released to the environment [4].
Such is not the case. According to a recent report by the BBC
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24994209), e-waste pollution is
causing severe health concerns for millions of people around the world, mostly in
the developing nations of Africa, Europe and Asia. Approximately 23 percent of deaths
in these nations are linked to pollution and other environmental impacts. The report
also concluded that more than 200 million people worldwide are at risk of exposure to
toxic waste.
2. Definition of Ewaste
E-waste is a highly complex waste stream as it contains both very scarce and valuable
as well as very toxic components. One of the major issues related to E-waste is that
there is no standard definition of WEEE/E-waste. A number of countries have come
out with their own definitions, interpretation and usage of the term E-
waste/WEEE. The most widely accepted definition and description of WEEE/ E-
waste is as per the European Union directive. The Directive 2002/96/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 27 J anuary 2003 on waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE) covers all electrical and electronic equipment used
by consumers. For the purposes of this Directive, following definitions are applied:
1. Electrical and electronic equipment or EEE means equipment which is
dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work
properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such
currents and fields falling under the categories set out in Annex IA and
designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1000 Volt for
alternating current and 1500 Volt for direct current;


2. Waste electrical and electronic equipment or WEEE means electrical or
electronic equipment which is waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of
Directive 75/442/ EEC, including all components, subassemblies and
consumables which are part of the product at the time of discarding.
Categories of electrical and electronic equipment covered by this Directive
within ANNEX IA are as follows:
1. Large household appliances
2. Small household appliances
3. IT and telecommunications equipment
4. Consumer equipment
5. Lighting equipment
6. Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial
tools)
7. Toys, leisure and sports equipment
8. Medical devices (with the exception of all implanted and infected products)
9. Monitoring and control instruments
10. Automatic dispensers. [5]

3. E-Waste concerns and challenge in Indian scenario
While the overall challenges regarding management of e-waste in India are the same
faced by other developing economies, the vast geographical diversity and economic
disparities between regions often make e-waste management challenges unique in
India. A few of the key challenges faced are:
1. Accurate figures not available for rapidly increasing e-waste volumesgenerated
domestically and by imports.
2. Low level of awareness among manufacturers and consumers of the hazards of
incorrect e-waste disposal.
3. No accurate estimates of the quantity of e-waste generated and recycled available in
India.
4. Major portion of e-waste is processed by the informal (unorganised) sector using
rudimentary techniques such as acid leaching and open-air burning, which results in
severe environmental damage.
5. e-waste workers have little or no knowledge of toxins in e-waste and are exposed to
health hazards.

6. High-risk backyard recycling operations impact vulnerable social groups like
women, children and immigrant laborers.
7. Inefficient recycling process results in substantial losses of material value and
resources.
8. Cherry-picking by recyclers who recover precious metals (gold, platinum, silver,
copper, etc) and improperly dispose of the rest, posing environmental hazards.
9. No specific legislation for dealing with e-waste at present [6].
4. Sources of E-Waste

Some of major sources of E-waste include [10]
Importers
Producers/ manufacturers
Retailers(business/ government/ others)
Consumers(individuals households, businesses, government)
Traders
Scrap dealers
Dissemblers/ dismantlers
Smelters
Recyclers
The involvement of various sectors could be observed as the sources of
generation of E-waste. The general flow of E-waste across different sectors
Informal Sector
Formal Sector


are tried to represent by the following flow chart.[10]
4.1 Indian perspective
Manufacturer: According to surveys conducted about 50% of PCs which are sold all
over the country are basically from the secondary market and are reassembled on the
old components. The rest of market share cover by MNCs (30%) and Indian brands
(20%) [11]. Besides manufacturers are major contributors of e-waste. The waste
consists of defective IC chips, motherboards, CRTs and other peripheral items
produced during the production process. It also includes defective PCs under guarantee
procured from consumers as replacement items.
Consumer: About 22% of junk computers are generated from Indian household [12].
The routine process of getting rid of obsolete computers include exchanging from
retailers or pass on the same to friends or relatives. The business sector accounts for
78% of all installed PC's in India [12]. The junk computers from business sector are
often sold during auction or sometimes donated to educational $institutes or charitable
institutions for reuse.
Import of e-waste: Import of e-waste is legally prohibited no doubt the reports prove
that lots of e-waste is imported from abroad. The ministry of environment has no data
related to import of e-waste but above says that 100% control of the borders is not
possible.
5. Environment concerns & health hazards
E- Waste is an important global environmental and health issue. Electronic and
Electrical Equipment are composed of an enormous amount of components. Many of
them fall under the hazardous category. Majority of these components contain toxic
substances that have adverse impacts on human health and the environment if
not handled properly. Often, these hazards arise due to the improper recycling and
disposal processes that are in practice in most of the developing countries including
India. Such offensive practices can have serious aftermath for those staying in
proximity to the places where E-waste is recycled or burnt[14].
Disposal of E-wastes is an unembellished problem faced by many regions across
the globe. Electronic wastes that are land filled produces contaminated leachates which
eventually pollute the groundwater. Acids and sludge obtained from melting computer
chips, if disposed on the ground causes acidification of soil. For example, Guiyu, Hong
Kong a flourishing area of illegal E-waste recycling, is facing acute water shortages due


to the contamination of water resources. This is due to disposal of recycling wastes
such as acids, sludge etc. in rivers.
Mercury leaches when certain electronic devices, such as circuit breakers are destroyed.
The same is true for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from condensers. When
brominated flame retardant plastic or cadmium containing plastics are landfilled, both
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) and cadmium may leach into the soil and
groundwater. It has been found that significant amounts of lead ion are dissolved from
broken lead containing glass, such as the cone glass of cathode ray tubes, gets mixed
with acid waters and are a common occurrence in landfills [14].
In addition, uncontrolled fires may arise at landfills and this could be a frequent
occurrence in many countries. When exposed to fire, metals and other chemical
substances, such as the extremely toxic dioxins and furans (TCDD tetrachloro
dibenzo-dioxin, PCDDs-polychlorinated dibenzodioxins. PBDDs-polybrominated
dibenzo-dioxin and PCDFs-poly chlorinated dibenzo furans) from halogenated flame
retardant products can be emitted[13]. The most dangerous form of burning E-waste
is the open-air burning of plastics in order to recover copper and other metals.
The toxic fall-out from open air burning affects the local environment and
broader global air currents, depositing highly toxic byproducts in many places
throughout the world. Incineration of E-waste possesses another threat. It can emit
toxic fumes and gases, thereby polluting the surrounding air. Moreover, shipping of
hazardous waste to developing countries is a major alarm. It happens because of cheap
labour and lack of environmental legislations in developing countries [14].
Roughly 40 million metric tons of electronic waste (e- waste) are produced
globally each year, and about 13 percent of that weight is recycled mostly in
developing countries. About 9 million tons of this wastediscarded televisions,
computers, cell phones, and other electronicsare produced by the European
Union, according to the United Nations Environment Programme ( UNEP) . And
UNEP notes that this estimate of waste is likely too low[15].
Informal recycling markets in China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and the Philippines
handle anywhere from 50 percent to 80 percent of this e- waste, often shredding,
burning, and dismantling the products in "back yards. " Emissions from these
recycling practices are damaging human health and the environment[16].
Developing countries with rapidly growing economies handle e- waste from
developed countries, and from their own internal consumers. Currently, an
estimated 70 percent of e- waste handled in India is from other nations, but the


UNEP estimates that between 2007 and 2020, domestic television e- waste will
double, computer e- waste will increase five times, and cell phones 18 times.
The informal sectors recycling practices magnify health risks. For example, primary
and secondary exposure to toxic metals, such as lead, results mainly from open- air
burning used to retrieve valuable components such as gold. Combustion from burning
e- waste creates fine particulate matter, which is linked to pulmonary and
cardiovascular disease [17]. While the health implications of e- waste are difficult
to isolate due to the informal working conditions, poverty, and poor sanitation,
several studies in Guiyu, a city in southeastern China, offer insight. Guiyu is
known as the largest e- waste recycling site in the world, and the city' s residents
exhibit substantial digestive, neurological, respiratory, and bone problems. For
example, 80 percent of Guiyus children experience respiratory ailments, and are
especially at risk of lead poisoning [18].
6. Global Significance of EWaste

The Basel Action Network (BAN) which works for prevention of globalisation of toxic
chemicals has stated in a report that 50 to 80 per cent of e-waste collected by the US is
exported to India, China, Pakistan, Taiwan and a number of African countries. This is
done because cheaper labour is available for recycling in these countries. And in the
US, export of e-waste is legal. E-waste recycling and disposal in China, India and
Pakistan are highly polluting. Of late, China has banned import of e-waste. Export of e-
waste by the US is seen as lack of responsibility on the part of Federal Government,
electronics industry, consumers, recyclers and local governments towards viable and
sustainable options for disposal of e-waste. In India, recycling of e-waste is almost
entirely left to the informal sector, which does not have adequate means to handle either
the increasing quantities or certain processes, leading to intolerable risk for human
health and the environment [19].
The Bamako Convention or the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into
Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes was adopted
by the twelve nations of the Organization of African Unity at Bamako, Mali in J anuary,
1991, and came into force in March, 1999 [20]. The Convention aims to protect human
health and environment from dangers posed by hazardous wastes by reducing their
generation to a minimum in terms of quantity and/or hazardous potential. All Parties
are obliged to prohibit the import of all hazardous wastes, for any reason, into Africa
from non-Contracting Parties (article 4.1). The categories of wastes listed in Annex I to


the Bamako Convention, a waste possessing any of the characteristics listed in Annex II
to the Bamako Convention, as well as any waste considered to be hazardous by the
domestic laws of either the state of import, export, or transit are considered hazardous
wastes for the purposes of the Bamako Convention. It is clear from the provisions of
the Bamako Convention that the dumping of radioactive wastes, industrial wastes,
sewage and sewage sludge is prohibited. The Bamako Convention places the duty on
the Parties to monitor their respective waterways to ensure that no dumping occurs.
Each State Party has to report annually to the Secretariat [20].
The Rotterdam Convention calls on exporters of hazardous chemicals to use proper
labeling, include directions on safe handling, and inform purchasers about known
restrictions or bans. The Convention requires each Party to notify the Secretariat,
provided jointly by the FAO and UNEP, when taking a domestic regulatory action to
ban or severely restrict a chemical [21].
As a legislative initiative to solve the problem of huge amounts of toxic e-waste, a
Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment, namely 2002/95/EC, commonly referred to as the Restriction of
Hazardous Substances Directive or RoHS was adopted in February 2003 by the
European Union. The RoHS Directive came into force with effect from 1 J uly 2006,
and is required to be enforced and become law in each member state. The Directive
restricts the use of six hazardous materials in the manufacture of various types of
electronic and electrical equipment [22].

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

China

Electronic waste in China has gained world-wide attention as a serious environmental
issue. Guiyu in Guangdong Province is the location of the largest electronic waste site
on earth. Chinese laws are primarily concerned with eliminating the import of e-waste.
China has ratified the Basel Convention as well as the Basel Ban Amendment,
officially banning the import of e-waste. In October, 2008, the Chinese State Council
also approved a draft regulation on the management of electronic waste with the
objective of promoting the continued use of resources through recycling and
monitoring the end-of-life treatment of electronics. Under the new regulations, the
consumer is required to recycle electronic products. It also requires the recycling of
unnecessary materials discarded in the manufacturing process [23].


The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) in China, officially known as the
Administrative Measure on the Control of Pollution Caused by Electronic Information
Products is a Chinese Government regulation to control certain materials, including
lead. It was jointly promulgated by the seven Government Departments and
administrations of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) in February, 2006 and
became effective from 1 March, 2007[23].
According to Article 1 of the Administrative Measure, it was formulated on the basis
of the legal and administrative laws of the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on
Promotion of Clean Protection, the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on the
Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste, etc., in order to
control and reduce environmental pollution caused by the discarded electronic
information products, promote manufacture and sale of low pollution electronic
information products, and protect environment and human health[24].
All items shipped to China now have to be marked as to whether the items contained in
the box are compliant or non-compliant. The Electronic Information Products (EIP)
logo or other label is used to mark parts and assemblies that do not contain acceptable
amounts of substances identified by the regulations, and those that are environmentally
safe. Units which contain hazardous substances are marked with the EIP logo
including an Environment Friendly Use Period (EFUP) value in years. EFUP is the
period of time before any of the RoHS directions restricted substances are likely to
leak out, causing possible harm to health and the environment [24].
There are currently six substances considered environmentally hazardous by the
Chinese RoHS Directive (Article 3 of Chapter 1), namely lead, mercury, cadmium,
hexavalen chromium, poly-brominated biphenyls, poly-brominated diphenyl ethers and
other toxic or hazardous substances or elements set by the state [24].
Hong Kongs Waste Disposal Ordinance bans the import of batteries and cathode rays.
Currently, there is no legislation in place to bar the entry of other electronics into the
ports of Hong Kong.

European Union (EU)

The EU has been passing comprehensive and progressive e-waste legislation that is
partly comparable to the new draft rules in India ever since the mid-1990s. This
legislation not only controls e-waste flows as stipulated in the Waste Shipment
Regulation, but also governs the disposal and collection of WEEE (WEEE Directive)


as well as the restriction of hazardous substances in electronic and electrical equipment
(RoHS Directive). The export of e-waste is governed by Council Regulation No.
259/93, the so-called Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR), which was passed in 1993
and amended in 2007. Its main purpose is to control and regulate the supervision of
waste shipments in order to prevent environmentally harmful shipments to countries
without adequate provisions to deal with those wastes. According to the WSR, no EU
member state is allowed to export e-waste classified as hazardous to non-OECD
countries, including India (ECT/RWM, 2008: 14-15; IMPEL, 2004: 7-9). As a
substantial number of e-waste components do not fall under the WSRs definition of
hazardous, however, these components may be exported to non-OECD countries under
special provisions. These provisions depend primarily on the importing countrys
acceptance of such waste. The export of non-waste used electrical and electronic
equipment (EEE) to non-OECD countries is allowed in principle (ECTS/RWM, 2008:
15; Huisman et al., 2007: 195). In addition to export regulations, the EU has passed e-
waste legislation targeted at changing product designs and increasing recycling rates of
discarded WEEE (Sander & Schilling, 2010: 21). The WEEE (Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment) and RoHS (Restriction of the use of certain hazardous
substances) Directives have been in force since 2003. While the RoHS Directive
addresses the beginning of the EEE life cycle by attempting to eliminate hazardous
substances such as mercury, lead and fire retardants in domestically produced or
imported electrical and electronic products, the WEEE Directive concentrates on the
end-of-life stages of EEE. The main objectives of the latter are to reduce the amount of
EEE disposed of in landfills and to increase recycling and recovery of e-waste.
Member states are required to set up collection and treatment schemes where
consumers can return their used e-waste free of charge. The Directive also intends to
encourage product designs that facilitate the recycling, repair, disassembly and reuse of
WEEE by introducing the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EPR
allocates the financial responsibility for collecting and managing WEEE in line with
the Directive to the producers (Hester & Harrison, 2009: 6). Individual Producer
Responsibility (IPR) applies for the management of new products put on the market.
For historical waste, i.e. products put on the market before 13 August 2005, the
financial responsibility is divided among producers in proportion to their market share
of a specific type of equipment (WEEE Directive, Article 8). The rationale behind
producer responsibility is the polluter pays principle, which intends to include the


costs of disposal and treatment in a products price, thus reflecting the products
environmental effects (Nnorom & Osibanjo, 2008: 845).
Despite the wide-ranging legislation, only a third of the WEEE arising in the EU is
officially reported as being treated in line with the WEEE Directive. Part of the
remaining two thirds, which have been collected but not reported, is suspected of being
treated in the EU without appropriate environmental care or of being shipped illegally
to treatment sites outside the EU that do not meet European environmental and health
standards. Some of the e-waste may also be dumped in developing countries (EC,
2008a: 2). Although the current data situation regarding e-waste shipments out of the
EU is not sufficient to determine the exact quantities of e-waste being exported legally
and illegally, some general tendencies can still be identified [25].
Only a small fraction of the total amount of WEEE generated in the EU is legally
exported to non-EU countries, although the quantities of e-waste actually shipped are
believed to be much higher (ETC/RWM, 2008: 50-54). Both our interview partners
and studies conducted indicate that a substantial amount of WEEE is still exported
illegally despite EU legislation proscribing the export of e-waste to non-OECD
countries (EC, 2008b: 5; Zoeteman et al., 2009: 29-30). The occurrence of illegal
exports to non-OECD countries shows that both the WSR and the WEEE Directive
have enforcement deficits. A brief overview of the main factors behind this situation is
presented below.
Although the complex regulatory system for waste shipment set up by the WSR has a
significant impact on the export of WEEE, various legal and implementation issues
hamper the legislations overall effectiveness. These include a lack of capacity on the
part of the authorities involved, for instance to pursue inspections more proactively;
gaps in national law for enforcement in case of non-compliance; and legal grey areas in
the WSR concerning the classification problems regarding waste, particularly the
difficult distinction between functioning second-hand and waste products, among other
things (IMPEL, 2006: 22, 28). The lack of criteria for distinguishing new, used and
waste products is one of the main reasons for illegal exports. Various cases have been
detected in which used EEE was declared to be second-hand and functioning, when in
fact it was not working and in part considered hazardous (ibid.: 49; Huisman et al.,
2007: 195).
The WEEE Directive influences both the management and albeit rather indirectly
the export of e-waste. The Directive does so by setting collection targets for recycling
e-waste and trying to promote reuse of WEEE while diminishing its generation.


However, there are indications that the Directives existing requirements for treating
the separately collected WEEE have not been effective (EC, 2008c: 2). The interviews
conducted even pointed to an increase in illegal e-waste exports as a result of the
WEEE Directive a situation quite contrary to its actual intention. This situation
results mainly from the fact that the high and ambitious environmental standards
stipulated in the Directive involve additional costs of treatment, likely fuelling e-waste
trade with non-OECD countries where the costs are much lower (EC, 2008b: 8). In an
effort to address the Directives insufficient effectiveness and efficiency, the European
Commission proposed a revision of it in 2008. Several modifications currently under
discussion could possibly help to reduce illegal e-waste exports to non-OECD
countries. These include setting a higher mandatory collection target for e-waste,
establishing minimum monitoring requirements for WEEE shipments and introducing
a legally binding provision for the distinction between new, used or waste products to
tackle the false labelling of WEEE as used EEE (EC, 2008a: 7; Sander & Schilling,
2010: 22).
The example of the EU indicates that clear legal provisions, including those for
monitoring and enforcement, the need to raise awareness of existing regulations among
all relevant stakeholders and the recognition of e-wastes potentially hazardous nature
in conjunction with a more sustainable use and reuse of EEE are necessary for
effective handling of e-waste [26].

United States(US)

Unlike the EU, the US Congress has failed to pass federal legislation specifically
targeting either the national management or the export of WEEE. As a result, only two
federal regulations address e-waste and its export: the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)s
CRT Rule. RCRA proscribes a cradle to grave tracking system for hazardous waste.
The law requires individuals or companies handling, disposing of or shipping
hazardous waste to obtain permits from the EPA and/or get permission from importing
countries (EPA 2009b; GAO, 2008: 32). However, RCRA contains two main
loopholes that result in a failure to regulate most e-waste. Firstly, RCRA regulates
WEEE disposal only when the electronics in question fall under the acts definition of
hazard-ous waste. When disposed of in landfills in the US, most e-waste does not meet
this definition; when dismantled abroad, however, exposure to toxins increases (GAO,


2008: 32; Puckett et al., 2002). Additionally, EPA has created exemptions for the
export of certain hazardous items (EPA, 2010b; ETBC, 2008: 6). Secondly, households
and businesses producing up to 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month may dispose
of that waste in landfills within the US (EPA, 2010b). A good deal of the small amount
of WEEE that falls under the hazardous-waste definition thus remains unregulated
(GAO, 2009: 3-5). An unknown quantity of this waste may be shipped abroad. In sum,
RCRA does little to regulate either the disposal of municipal e-waste within the United
States or its export. Only items containing cathode ray tubes, or CRTs, presently fall
under RCRAs definition of hazardous waste. Consequently, the EPA has created a
rule regulating the disposal of these items, which are primarily televisions and
computer monitors. If e-waste exporters wish to ship CRTs abroad for recycling, they
are required to inform EPA of shipments planned for a period of 12 months or less; the
EPA then contacts the importing country and obtains written permission for the
shipments (EPA, 2009a). The CRT rule currently in effect also contains important
loopholes that weaken its already limited regulation of US e-waste exports. Firstly, the
rule only regulates the export of unsorted CRT glass and CRTs destined for recycling.
Exporters of intact CRTs intended for reuse merely need to submit a one-time
notification of export to the EPA and maintain records that prove that the CRTs will be
reused. Notifying the importing country is not necessary (EPA, 2009a). Secondly, the
EPA does not restrict the export of unused, intact CRTs intended for reuse or recycling
or that of processed CRT glass (ibid.).
Thus, as the federal government does not consider most e-waste hazardous, American
recyclers may ship the electronics abroad with virtually no restriction. The federal
CRT rule limits exports, but only of a small fraction of the total e-waste stream.
Furthermore, a GAO (2008) study turned up significant evidence that the EPA has
failed to implement and enforce the CRT rule. Many recyclers either directly violate
the rule by not notifying the EPA of their exports or seek to circumvent it by labelling
shipments as destined for reuse, regardless of the electronics actual level of
functionality. They have received few sanctions (ibid; GAO, 2005a: 14-15) [27]. In the
absence of federal legislation regulating most types of e-waste disposal, an increasing
number of US states have begun to develop their own e-waste regulation and
management systems. 23 states have passed EPR legislation that restricts the disposal
of certain types of e-waste, but the strength and scope of the provisions vary greatly
from state to state. The other 27 states have no restrictions on e-waste disposal.
Although state programmes have had some success in increasing recycling, the states


are also encountering enforcement problems due to their limited powers and the vast
scope of WEEE. Additionally, their power to enforce their legislation ends at their
borders (NREC, 2006: 15). As a result, the five states whose laws seek to restrict or
impose conditions on the international export of e-waste can do very little to enforce
these provisions. Indeed, the patchwork of state laws has indirectly resulted in an
increase in e-waste exports for two reasons. Firstly, exports are growing because the
state laws mandating recycling are working. The percentage of e-waste collected for
recycling has indeed increased in recent years (EPA 2008: 23; Wagner 2009; GAO
2005b: 15). Since recyclers export the large majority of that WEEE, increasing
amounts of waste and a higher percentage of recycled products almost certainly
indicate higher absolute and per capita export volumes(GAO 2008: 42; Tonetti 2007:
6). Secondly, the absence of federal e-waste laws strengthens the existing economic
incentive to export e-waste. American recyclers and manufacturers send their e-waste
abroad because recyclers in developing and transition countries can extract the
precious materials more cheaply (Puckett et al., 2002). In the absence of a national
collection system, electronics recyclers operating in the United States have difficulty
obtaining enough e-waste to operate their expensive machinery at an economy of scale.
As in the EU, the environmentally sound treatment of e-waste incurs high costs,
thereby encouraging illegal trade. Furthermore, with few regulations attempting to
influence or encourage changes in product designs, electronic products become
obsolete quickly and remain difficult and expensive to disassemble in both the US and
the EU (GAO, 2005a: 9) As a result, the state e-waste laws actually make WEEE
management and recycling in the US more economically inefficient. Each states
regulations differ from the others and sometimes even conflict with them. This
regulatory patchwork has significantly increased the costs to both e-waste recyclers
and electronics manufacturers (NCER, 2006; Daly, 2006; GAO, 2005b: 17-18). One
study found that complying with and enforcing the 20 overlapping and conflicting state
regulations costs government, recyclers and electronics manufacturers an extra
US$125 million per year (NCER, 2006). Several voluntary programmes run by
manufacturers exist, but these have not been very successful at increasing the recycling
volume, especially in states without any e-waste regulation (Wagner, 2009: 3017;
Daly, 2006; Dempsey, 2009). The large amount of e-waste currently stockpiled in US
businesses and households and being disposed of in landfills represents a tremendous
economic opportunity for the US recycling industry. However, most electronics


manufacturers and recyclers agree that this potential cannot be realised without a
federal e-waste programme (NCER, 2006; Daly, 2006).
6.2. Magnitude of the Problem with respect to the Indian scenario

Existing Legislation
[30]


Electronic waste is being partly covered under the broad regulatory framework related
to hazardous waste in India. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of
India, is the nodal agency at the central level for policy, planning, promoting and
coordinating the environmental programs. The Environment (Protection) Act 1986,
umbrella legislation covers hazardous waste and provides broad guidelines to address
it.
The policy statement on the abatement of pollution issued by the government of India
in 1992 reiterated its commitment towards waste minimization and control of
hazardous wastes. India is a signatory to Basel Convention on the control of trans-
boundary movement of Hazardous Wastes and Disposal. India ratified and acceded to
it in 1992. The ratification of this convention obliges India to address the problem of
trans-boundary movement and disposal of dangerous hazardous wastes through
international cooperation.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has issued the following
notifications related to hazardous waste:
1. Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989/ 2000/ 2002
2. MoEF Guidelines for Management and Handling of Hazardous Wastes, 1991
3. Guidelines for Safe Road Transport of Hazardous Chemicals, 1995
4. The Public Liability Act, 1991
5. Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001
6. The National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995
7. Bio-Medical Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998
8. Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and 2002
9. The Recycled Plastic Manufacture and Usage (Amendment) Rules 2003
The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 were introduced
under
Sections 6, 8, and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 (referred to as
HWM Rules, 1989). The HWM Rules, 1989 provide for the control of generation,
collection, treatment, transport, import, storage and disposal of wastes listed in the
schedule annexed to these rules. The rules are implemented through the various


Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees in the states and union
territories. There were a few inherent limitations to the implementation of the HWM
Rules, 1989, which led to amendments to these Rules being introduced in 2000, 2002
and 2008, widening the definition of hazardous waste by incorporating e-waste and
harmonizing the list of hazardous waste materials with that of the Basel Convention.
Besides these rules, in 1991, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New
Delhi issued guidelines for management and handling of hazardous wastes for (a)
generators of waste, (b) transport of hazardous waste, and (c) owners/operators of
hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facilities. These guidelines also
established mechanisms for the development of a reporting system for the movement
of hazardous waste (the manifest system) and for the first time, established procedures
for closure and post-closure requirements for landfills.
In addition to these direct rules dealing with issues of hazardous waste management,
the
Government has moved to enact legislation and additional incentives for industries to
comply with environmental provisions and bring out market forces into the business of
environment. In this vein, the Public Liability Act 1991 was adopted to require
industries dealing with hazards to ensure against accidents or damages caused by
release of pollutants.
Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001 apply to every manufacturer,
importer, re-conditioner, assembler, dealer, recycler, auctioneer, consumer and bulk
consumer involved in manufacture, processing, sale, purchase and use of batteries or
components thereof. These rules confer responsibilities on the manufacturer, importer,
assembler and re-conditioner; they govern the registration of importers, the customs
clearance of imports of new lead acid batteries, procedures for registration/ renewal of
registration of recyclers and also the responsibilities of consumer or bulk consumer and
responsibilities of auctioneers.
In 1995 publication of guidelines for Safe Road Transport of Hazardous Chemicals
that established basic rules for Hazardous Goods Transport and provided for
establishment of a Transport Emergency Plan and for provisions on Identification and
assessment of Hazards.
The National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995, provides for expeditious remedies to
parties injured by environmental crimes. Legislation on the Communitys Right to
Know, 1996, has been adopted to provide more access to information regarding
potential hazards from industrial operations.


Bio-Medical Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998, provides a ten category
listing of biomedical waste there control of generation, collection, treatment, transport,
import, storage and disposal of wastes listed in the schedule annexed to these rules.
Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, provides for
collection, segregation, storage, transportation processing and disposal of municipal
solid wastes. The recycled plastic Manufacture and Usage (Amendment) Rules 2003.
These rules essentially deal with plastic recycling and products made out of plastic
recycling.
7. Possible Solutions
1. Make the use of certain chemicals and materials illegal in the production of
electronic devices.
2. Encourage More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs) to dispose of its
own waste. This will prevent child mortality and will raise awareness.
3. Give an incentive to the creation of structured companies that would deal with
electronic waste in Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) to preserve both
jobs and health.
4. Render the use of non rechargeable batteries very expensive with the use of taxes.
8. Conclusion
The study findings revealed that these big countries have large number of laws which
talks about the elimination of E-waste but due to blindness of development countries
are not taking sincere step against it. Strictly enforcing these laws is strongly suggested
as a way to prevent those who make a certain kind of donations to developing
countries [9]. Future efforts to minimize illegal dumping will undoubtedly include
a combination of aggressive legislation, new technological solutions, and increased
public awareness through more education on e-Waste. Present laws should be
evaluated and modified periodically to allow proper progression. In developing
countries many people are totally unaware of this problem. Countries have to educate
people about how to recycle, reuse, and dispose electronics at all levels will
teach them and their communities how to behave more responsibly towards the
environment. Indeed, electronic waste is a global problem requiring a global solution.
By Vikram Karuna, Ll.B (Hons.),4
th
year, B.A LL.B( Hons) Faculty Of Law, University
Of Lucknow





References:
1. Electronic Waste: A Case Study of Reena Gupta, Sangita and Kaur Verinder, Vol. 1(9), 49-56, Dec.
(2011) of Res.J.Chem.Sci.
2. DIT. Environmental management for Information Technology industry in India, Department of
Information Technology, Government of India, 122-124 (2003)
3. Electrical and electronic waste: a global environmental problem. Ramesh Babu B, Parande AK,
Ahmed Basha C.
4. Mittal D., et.al. 2012, E-Waste: A Hidden Threat to Global Environment and Health, VSRD
International Journal of Science and Technology; 2(3): 271-275
5. Anwesha Borthakur, Pardeep Singh, Electronic waste in India: Problems and policies, International
Journal Of Environmental Sciences Volume 3, No 1, 2012: 353-354
6. E-Waste Management In India Consumer Voice April 2009: 32
7. J. Kuper and M. Hojsi k, Poisoning the Poor Electronic Waste in Gahana, Greenpeace
International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008.
8. C. Davis, Why is electronic waste a problem? Earthtrends, 2006,
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/130
9. M. KhurrumS. Bhutta, Adnan Omar and Xiaozhe Yang, Electronic Waste: A Growing Concern in
Today's Environment, Economics Research International Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 474230:
10. Anwesha Borthakur, Pardeep Singh, Electronic waste in India: Problems and policies, International
Journal Of Environmental Sciences Volume 3, No 1, 2012: 356
11. Annual report, MAIT (2003)
12. Toxics Link report: Scrapping the Hi-tech Myth: Computer Waste in India, Retrieved from:
www.toxicslink.org, Feb. (2003)
13. Annual Report of Stop the E-waste Problem, an initiative by United Nations University, available at
http://www.step-initiative.org/pdf/Annual_Report_2008.pdf, accessed on March, 2009.
14. Anwesha Borthakur, Pardeep Singh, Electronic waste in India: Problems and policies, International
Journal Of Environmental Sciences Volume 3, No 1, 2012: 357-358
15. United Nations Environmental Program ( UNEP) , RecyclingFrom E- Waste to Resources (
New York: UNEP, 2009) , accessed at www. unep.org, on Jan. 23, 2013.
16. UNEP and Basel Convention, "V ital Waste Graphic s, " Global Resource Information Database
(2005) , accessed at www.grida.no/publications/vg/waste, on Jan. 24, 2013.
17. Lucy McAllister, The Human and Environmental Effects of E-Waste, Population Reference Bureau:
18. Anna O.W. Leung et al. , "Heavy Metals Concentrations of Surface Dust From E- Waste
Recycling and its Human Health Implications in Southeast China, "Environmental Science and
Technology 42, no. 7 (2008) : 2674- 80.
19. E-Waste Management In India Consumer Voice April 2009: 31
20. 'Bamako Convention', International Maritime Organisation, 09 December, 2005, <http://www.imo.org
21. 'The Rotterdam Convention', Simultaneous Extra-ordinary Meetings of the Conferences of the Parties to
the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, Bali-Indonesia, 22-24 February, 2010,
http://excops.unep.ch
22. Wikipedia, 'Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive', http://en.wikipedia.org
23. Wikipedia, 'China RoHS', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_RoHS Last modified: 09 October, 2010.
24. 'Administrative Measure on the Control of Pollution Caused by Electronic Information Products', 28
February 2006 (English Translated Version), Ministry of Information Industry of the People's Republic
of China (No.39), <http://www.esimcom.com/esimv3/priv/administrativemeasure.pdf>":163-165
25. The lack of sufficient and reliable data is due to a variety of reasons: data retrieved fromtrade statistics
can only be used to a limited extent as these figures do not allow classification of EEE as waste, used or
new products and only a small number of codes are clearly on WEEE (ETC/RWM, 2008: 51); the
potentially most reliable source at present, i.e. data reporting according to the WEEE Directive, only
started in 2005 and is published with a time lag. Fraud in documents also contributes to the difficulty of
determining the true quantity of e-waste (EEA, 2009: 50).
26. Alexandra Skinner, Yvonne Dinter, Alex Lloyd, Philip Strothmann The Challenges of E-Waste
Management in India, ASIEN 117 (Oktober 2010), S. 7-26:11-14
27. In August 2010, the EPA announced cleaning up e-waste as one of its six new international priorities
(EPA, 2010c). The announcement indicates that changes in this area might occur in the near future.
28. An introduction to Brominated flame retardants. Bromine science and environmental forum, Belgium,
www.bsef.com, www.firesafety.org.
29. Transboundary shipment of EWaste Regulations, systems, stakeholders and solutions http://WWW:
epository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:bd356625-3d70-41a7.../Wang%20J.


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