E-Waste – Where is Away?E-Waste – Where is Away?

Lynne H. Hehr, Cindy Cardwell,

John Hehr, Mary Alice Mixon

Center for Math and Science Education

Arkansas NASA Educator Resource Center

University of Arkansas

Fayetteville, AR 72701

Millions of Tons of Used Devices Pose Threat to Environment

By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A04

Millions of Tons of Used Devices Pose Threat to Environment

By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A04

In today's high-tech era, the temptation for upgrades is everywhere: a slimmer cell phone, a sleeker desktop, a sportier BlackBerry.

But the consequences of the constant quest for better gadgetry are piling up. Every time last year's monitor is chucked, it becomes a piece of potentially hazardous waste. It is estimated that by 2010, the United States will junk 400 million electronic devices, items containing toxic metals. (Nati Harnik – AP)

More than three years after federal and industry officials began to talk about how to cope with the "e-waste" problem, the situation has only deteriorated. Americans dispose of 2 million tons of electronic products a year -- including 50 million computers and 130 million cell phones -- and by 2010, the nation will be discarding 400 million electronic units annually, according to the International Association of Electronics Recyclers.

Environmentalists say the rising tide of electronic waste is slowly degrading in landfills and rivers here and abroad, posing a serious threat to water and air. Computers, televisions and other advanced devices contain neurotoxins and carcinogens such as lead and beryllium metal that are leaching into waterways and entering the air through burning or dust.

With little notice, e-waste has become one of the fastest-growing sectors of the country's solid waste stream, and technology products now account for as much as 40 percent of the lead in U.S. landfills, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

For years, Americans were able to ship discarded computers and televisions to China, where they were dismantled for scrap. But with an escalating mountain of electronics waste threatening to overwhelm the country's storage and disposal capacity, regulators and manufacturers are struggling to devise a comprehensive solution to one of the nation's newest environmental dilemmas.

"Here we recognize it as a problem, and a number of states do," as well, said Thomas Dunne, acting assistant administrator for EPA's office of solid waste and emergency response, who last month ordered his deputies to craft a broad e-waste recycling strategy. "This is the next extension of pollution prevention."

Still, no one is quite ready to take on the task of managing the high-tech refuse that U.S. consumers are jettisoning with abandon. Federal regulators have asked the industry to devise a voluntary system to cope with the problem, but manufacturers are bickering over how to pay for it. In the meantime, a patchwork of state regulations has emerged, as officials from Maine to California seek to impose tougher rules on high-tech producers.

Activists say this haphazard approach to regulation is not enough. They say it fails to protect Americans from potential danger and encourages recyclers to ship e-waste to Asia, where it leaches into waterways and affects the health of low-wage workers. The United States is the only developed country not to have ratified the Basel Convention, an international treaty that took effect in 1992 and controls the export of hazardous waste.

"There's a real electronics-waste crisis," said Basel Action Network coordinator Jim Puckett, whose group monitors the global toxic waste trade. "The U.S. just looks the other way as we use these cheap and dirty dumping grounds."

Waste Not, Want Not! (WN2)Waste Not, Want Not! (WN2)

EPA education grant-fundedWeeklong summer institute with fall/spring

follow-upDay 1 – Problems?Days 2 and 3 – SEPUP, EPA and USGS materialsDay 4 – Field trip to solid waste treatment facilities, landfill, recycling centers, geologic areas of interest

Day 5 – Solutions?

One of the elements: CopperOne of the elements: Copper

Found in soil (6-80 ppm) and water Released from

weathering of rocksvolcanic activity forest firesNot all toxic

Dilution is one disposal method.

Serial Dilution: Concepts, Processes, and IssuesSerial Dilution: Concepts, Processes, and Issues

Toxic waste is harmful to living organisms and must be disposed of according to strict guidelines

Dilution is one approach to liquid toxic waste disposal and can lower the concentration to levels generally considered safe for living organisms.

The amount of a contamination in air or water is often expressed in ppm or ppb.

SEPUP Waste Disposal: Computers and The Environment SEPUP Waste Disposal: Computers and The Environment

SEPUP tray

Dropper bottles– Copper chloride solution 100,000 ppm– Used copper chloride Water Ammonia

Dropper Cup Paper towels

Activity 2: Dilution of Copper Chloride

SEPUP Waste Disposal: Computers and The EnvironmentSEPUP Waste Disposal: Computers and The Environment

Activity 2: Diluting the ProblemChallenge:

How can dilution be used to handle toxic waste?

ProcedureProcedure

Remove from packetSEPUP tray – put on white paper

Copper chloride bottle– put in Cup A

Water dropper bottle – put in Cup B

Ammonia dropper bottle – put in Cup C

Used copper chloride bottle – put in Cup D

Dropper and stirring rod – put in slots

Paper towels

Procedure cont.Procedure cont.

Using copper chloride (100,000ppm) bottle, put 10 drops in cup 1. (Replace lid. Return to Cup A.)

Using dropper, put 1 drop from cup 1 into cup 2. (Put dropper excess back in cup 1. Blot tip on paper towel.

Add 9 drops of H20 to cup 2. Stir.

Using dropper, put 1 drop from cup 2 into cup 3. (Put dropper excess back in cup 1. Blot tip on paper towel.)

Add 9 drops of H20 to cup 3. Stir.

Repeat this procedure through cup 6. (Be sure to put excess back in previous cup & blot tip.)

What are your observations?

Procedure cont.Procedure cont.

Procedure cont.Procedure cont.

Add 5 drops of ammonia to each cup.(Replace the lid. Return to Cup C. Blot the rod after each cup is stirred.)

Stir cups 1-6. (Blot the rod after each cup is stirred.)

What do you observe in …cup 1? …cup 2? …cup 3 ? …cup 4 ? …cup 5? … cup 6?

Using the “used copper chloride” bottle, put 10 drops in cup 7.

(Replace the lid. Return to Cup D.)

Using the ammonia bottle, add 5 drops to cup 7.

(Replace the lid. Return to Cup D.)

Stir cup 7 and compare to cups 1-6. (Blot the rod and replace on tray.)

Procedure cont.Procedure cont.

AnalysisAnalysis

The concentration in cup 1 is

100,000 or 1 1 part per 10

1,000,000 10

Which is less concentrated, the solution in cup 1 or cup 2? How do you know?

Analysis cont.Analysis cont.

If the solution in cup 1 has a concentration of 1/10, and the solution in cup 2 has a concentration of 1/10 that in cup 1, what is the concentration in cup 2?

1 of 1 1 1 part per 100

10 10 100

Is there any copper in the cups in which you cannot see any color? Explain.

Analysis cont.Analysis cont.

What is the concentration in cup 3?

What is the concentration in cup 4?

What is the concentration in cup 5?

What is the concentration in cup 6?

Analysis cont.Analysis cont.

Based on these comparisons, what isthe concentration of the used copper

chloride?

the lowest concentration of copper that the ammonia test can detect?

the number of liters of water you would need to dilute 1 liter of copper chloride from 100,000ppm to less than 1ppm?

Don’t forget:Don’t forget:

SEPUP packet

WN2 CD

Visit the SEPUP booth

# 3520