Managing e-Waste in India: Challenges Initiatives and Concerns1

Dipankar Dey2

This study tried to identify the challenges in managing e-wastes in India. It also describes

few initiatives taken in recent past to address the challenges and highlights few concerns.

The paper presents the preliminary findings of the pilot study the author had undertaken

at Sector V, Salt Lake City - the electronics hub of Kolkata.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The e-waste inventory in India for the year 2005 has been estimated to be 1, 46,180

tones. This is feared to exceed 8, 00,000 tones by 2012 .There is a need of authentic and

comprehensive data on e-waste. Various state pollutions control boards have initiated the

exercise to collect data on e-waste generation. It has been estimated that sixty-five cities

in India generate more than 60% of the total e-waste generated in India and only ten

states generate 70% of the total e-waste in India3.

A GTZ –MAIT Study in 2007, had put the estimate to 3.3 lakh tones and the latest study

(October 2009) by Toxic Link has put the figures to 4.2 lakh tones. In addition to

domestic e-waste, India has become a dump yard for the developed west like the USA.

According to Toxic Link, most of these wastes from abroad enter into this country in the

form of charity donations of old technology.

Few observations:

It is estimated that 90-97 % of e-waste gets recycled in India in the informal

sector in hazardous conditions.

Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) has recently approved the import of

8000 tonnes of e-waste by Attero Recycling, which has established a recycling

plant at Roorkee.(The Telegraph Sept23, 2009).

„e-waste‟ is unique because it simultaneously posses threat and opportunity. It

contains different hazardous elements which may cause severe environmental and

health problem, if not properly managed; E-waste also offers great opportunity to

small manufacturers by supplying many inputs, recovered through recycling

process, at a cheaper rate. It also offers job opportunities to thousands of

unemployed persons. Please refer to Annexures I&II

1 Presented for discussion at the IEEE Forum on 5th November 2009; Venue: the Committee Room, 4th

Floorof the Department of ETCE, Jadavpur University. This is an updated version of the theme paper

presented, on April 25, 2008 at Webel Bhavan, in the brain storming session on the same topic, organized

jointly by IBS Kolkata and Webel. 2 Dipankar Dey, PhD, Faculty Member and Associate Dean (Research), IBS, Plot J-3, Block –GP,Sector V,

Saltlake City, Kolkata 700 091, India, Tel: 91-33-23577124(O), 91-33-2410-1031®. ddey@ibsindia.org,

dip_dey@hotmail.com.The views are personal 3 MoEF, CPCB, 2008, March

Challenges:

Management of electronics waste using a sustainable and environmentally sound

technology/process is a challenging task, world wide. The initiatives taken so far have

failed to strike a balance between the safety and cost aspects, leading to failure of many

such projects. The major challenges are:

• To reduce e-waste through reuse, recycle, recovery and reduced use of toxic

substances

• To find / invent labor intensive intermediate technology to recycle / recover e-

waste, safely

• To fix the responsibility of managing e-waste on one or more stakeholders.

Definitions

Definition of WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipments) varies. Different

agencies/international bodies have extended different definitions. Refer to different

definitions in Table 1

Table 1: Overview of selected definitions of WEEE or e-waste

Reference Definition

EU WEEE Directive

Basel Action Network

OECD (2001)

StEP (2005)

"Electrical or electronic equipment which is waste... including

all components, sub-assemblies and consumables, which are part

of the product at the time of discarding." Directive 75/442/EEC,

Article l (a) defines "waste" as "any substance or object which

the holder disposes of or is required to dispose of pursuant to the

provisions of national law in force."

"E-waste encompasses a broad and growing range of electronic

devices ranging from large household devices such as

refrigerators, air conditioners, cell phones, personal stereos, and

consumer electronics to computers which have been discarded

by their users."

"Any appliance using an electric power supply that has reached

its end of-life."

E-waste refers to "...the reverse supply chain which collects

products no longer desired by a given consumer and refurbishes

for other consumers, recycles, or otherwise processes wastes.”

Government of India(GoI) in its Guideline on Management of E-waste (2008) has taken

a conservative definition compared to definitions extended by European Union at al.

WEEE directives of European Union took effect in 2005 which among others have set

standards for the use of hazardous elements like lead, cadmium, mercury etc. The new

standards have limited the usage of these elements at a much lower level.

As per the (GoI) guidelines, e-waste has been divided into three main categories, viz.

large household appliances, IT and Telecom and consumer equipments. Refrigerator and

washing machine represent large house hold appliance, personal computer, monitor and

laptop represents IT and Telecom, while the television represents consumers‟

equipments. Each of these e-waste items has been classified with respect to twenty six

common components which could be found in them. These components form the

“building blocks” of each item and therefore they are readily “identifiable” and

“removable”

Economics of exporting waste

In 1991, Larry Summers, the then Chief Economist of the World Bank (and later

President of Harvard University), extended the economic logic of exporting first world

waste to developing countries. He argued that

The countries with the lowest wages would lose the least productivity

from “increased morbidity and mortality” since the cost to be recouped

would be minimal;

The least developed countries , specifically those in Africa, were seriously

under-polluted and thus could stand to benefit from pollution trading

schemes as they had air and water to spare ; and that

Environmental protection for “health and aesthetic reasons” is essentially

a luxury of the rich, as mortality is such a great problem in these

developing countries that the relatively minimal effects of increased

pollution would pale in comparison to the problems these areas already

face.

Global Initiatives

The most prominent example of international initiative stemming against this type of

thinking is the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Tran-boundary Movements of

hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (in force since 1992).The Convention has put the

onus on exporting countries to ensure that hazardous waste be managed in an

environmentally sound manner in the country of import. With the exception of

Afghanistan, Haiti, and the United States of America, all 164 signatory countries have

ratified the Basel convention (Secretariat of the Basel Convention). As of October 2006,

168 countries have ratified the convention.

In 2003, Switzerland initiated a knowledge partnership programme with industrializing

countries. The ongoing project is funded by Seco (Swiss State Secretariat for Economic

Affairs) and implemented by Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing

and Research) in cooperation with a number of local partners and authorities. The aim of

the first phase was to identify and document the current e-waste handling situation in

three urban areas-Delhi (India), Beijing (China) and Johannesburg (South Africa}-and to

'develop a knowledge base to mitigate the hazards without reducing the attractiveness of

this business.

Green Peace Initiative: In August 2006, Greenpeace started publishing the „Guide to

Electronics‟ aiming to clean up the electronic sector. The guide ranks the 18 top

manufacturers of personal computers, mobile phones, TVs and games consoles according

to their policies on toxic chemicals, recycling and climate change.

Greenpeace Score Card for Greener Electronics, September 2009 (Version 13) Score 0 1 – 2 2 – 3 3 – 4 4 – 5 5 – 6 6 – 7 7 – 8 8 – 9 10

Firms Microsoft,

Lenovo,

Fujitsu

HP, Dell,

Acer,

LGE,

Panasonic,

Apple

Motorola,

Philips,

Toshiba,

Motorola,

Sharp,

Sony

Sony -

Ericsson,

Samsung

Nokia

#Companies were rated for an overall score of 10.

Dominant Models

To manage e-waste two dominant models (namely ARF and ERP) are followed in the

developed countries world wide

i. Advance Recovery Fee (ARF): An additional charge, usually $10 or

less is imposed on the consumer at the time a piece of electronic

equipment is purchased. California‟s legislation has adopted this

model. IBM and television manufacturers of the developed countries

also support ARF. However, the retailers opposed the ARF.

ii. Extended Producer‟s Responsibility (ERP): Manufacturers become

responsible for the complete life-cycle of the products they make,

paying a fee per piece of equipment either sold or returned for

recycling. HP and Dell support this concept. Retailers also support it

but television manufacturers oppose it.

Experience of Germany and USA indicate that management of waste is very expensive.

Though the Swiss model is considered as one of the best in the world, it is doubtful

whether manufacturers and producers of the developing countries would be able to bear

the expenses associated with such exercise. Refer to Table 2.

Table 2: Swiss e-waste competence

Switzerland has one of the best established e-waste management systems worldwide.

Both producers and consumers have today a convenient, proven and cost efficient

disposal service at hand. It was built over the last two decades based on private/industry

initiatives and now covers the entire range of electrical and electronic consumer products.

The system is currently managed by the responsible producers (manufacturers and

importers), organized in four so called producer responsibility organizations (PRO)

which handle specific categories of e-waste for their voluntary members:

SWICO Recycling Guarantee: The unit of the Swiss Association for the Information,

Communication and Organizational Technologies (ICT) handles mainly waste ICT and

consumer electronics (CE) such as personal computers.

SENS: The Swiss Foundation for Waste Management, handling mainly waste electrical

appliances and electronic equipment such as fridges.

SLRS: The Swiss Lighting Recycling Foundation handles exclusively lighting equipment

such as tube lights.

INOBAT: The Lobby for Battery Disposal handles exclusively all primary and

secondary batteries such as those for mobile phones.

Source: E-waste: Swiss e-waste competence

Indian Initiatives

India is a signatory to Basel Convention on the control of trans-boundary movement of

hazardous wastes and disposal. The Ministry of Environment and Forest has issued a

number of notification related to safe disposal of hazardous waste.

Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998/2000/2002

MoEF guidelines for Management and Handling of Hazardous Wastes, 1991

Guidelines for Safe Road Transport of Hazardous Chemicals, 1995

The Public Liability Act, 1991

Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001

The National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995

Bio-medical Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998

Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and 2002

Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of E-Waste 2008

Draft E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rule 2009.

Interestingly, the eco-mark initiatives taken by the Government in 1991 also contained

various guidelines on production and disposal of electrical and electronic equipments.

But many loopholes exist in the existing regulations. Moreover, the new guideline has

failed to show any direction for developing a proper policy to address the problem.

In Bangalore, an initiative with active support of the German and Swiss Government was

started in 2002. Refer to Annexure V.

The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has taken the lead in preparing a

comprehensive document titled „Report on Assessment of Electronic Wastes in Mumbai-

Pune Area, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, March 2007‟

IBS Initiative

IBS, Kolkata and Webel have taken an initiative to address this issue from the developing

countries‟ perspective. Consultation process had begun in early 2008 and on 25th

April a

brain storming session involving different stake holders was held at Webel Bhavan. It has

been decided to undertake a pilot study to know how different IT firms operating from

Sector V at Salt Lake City Kolkata, manage their „e-waste‟.

Primary data was collected, during January –March, 2009, using the following

questionnaire, which was forwarded to over 200 organizations in Sector V, Salt Lake

City. Very few showed any interest and only 8 responses were received. IBS students

Devangi Parekh and Upal Sen conducted the survey under the guidance of Dr Dipankar

Dey. (For details, see Annexure III)

A Brief note on the findings: The pilot survey revealed that

The main source of e-waste was scrap. Technological obsolescence was the other

major source.

Majority of the companies had reported to have a separate designated location for

storing e-waste.

Most of the companies disposed e-waste of their organization through authorized

agents. Sometimes toner cartridges were given to the manufacturers (like HP) as a

buyback agreement.

One of the major reasons for not having disposed the waste was that they were not

aware of any authorized disposal agent. This was followed by the revelation that

the management did not give it a serious thought to it.

There was enough demand for re-usable waste in the market, as observed my

most of the companies.

The responses for installing an e-waste system in the organization were mixed.

Equal responses for and against were received.

Few companies believed that e-waste management was not important for them as

they did not generate enough e-waste. Half of them felt that it was still important.

Majority of the respondents believed that it was profitable to manage and

reuse/resell e-waste.

Half of the companies believed that India had laws sufficient enough to regulate

e-waste and other half neither agreed nor disagreed.

More than half of the companies thought that e-waste was an integral part of the

organization, whereas few companies neither agreed nor disagreed.

Most of the respondents thought that producers of electronic equipments should

be responsible for management of e-waste generated by them.

Majority of the respondents that in future “Green Label” might become

mandatory for trading of any electronic products.

Few respondents felt that Indian business leaders were reluctant towards proper e-

waste disposal and management.

All companies believed that consumers of electronic equipments should be

responsible for proper management of the e-waste generated by them.

Concerns

• Tendency to tackle the problem following the western approach of „one size fit

all'. Total failure of Eco-label initiative (1991) of Ministry of Environment and

Forest (MoEF), India, and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is a case in

point. Please refer Annexure IV.

• Possibilities of large scale import of inappropriate technology. Already import of

incinerators have been reported. Refer to the Bangalore initiative (annexure V)

where the waste management is almost entirely dependent on foreign technology

and management practices which are very expensive.

• Strict environmental regulation may favor dominant players paving ways to

monopoly/oligopoly: Battery Management and Handling Rule 2001 have failed to

motivate all the stake holders. (Refer to annexure VI). It may be noted that against

a target of achieving retrieval ratio of old batteries at 90 percent in three years, the

organized sector could hardly attain the 20 per cent mark.4 .

• Failure to manage waste may act as a NTB to the exporters of electronic products,

if proper management of e-waste is included as a pre-condition to get market

access in the developed countries.

Road Ahead

Stake holders should work together to find a solution. For successful management of e-

waste, instead of a „top down approach‟, „bottom up approach‟ is more desirable. And at

the multilateral bodies like WTO and Basel Convention, efforts should be made by the

policy makers to reach an agreement on “mutual recognition” against “harmonization"

4 The Hindu Business Line, April 26, 2005

of EPR standards followed in different countries. The „one size fit all‟ approach needs to

be discarded.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

Central Pollution Control Board: Draft Guidelines for Environmentally Sound

Management of Electronic Waste, Chapter 2, Ministry of Environment & Forests,

Government of India.

e – Waste Management, website: http://www.cqmsju.org/weweasdtwe.gif

2/5/2008

Greenpeace, 2009: Guide To Greener Electronic, Version 13, September,

www.greenpeace.org/greenerelectronics.

Deepali Sinha-Khetriwala,, Philipp Kraeuchib, Markus Schwaninger,

Environment Impact Assessment Review, 25(2005), Elsevier

Kishore Wankhade: Is India becoming dumping ground for British e-waste?

Toxic Link, www.toxiclink.org, 24/09/2004,

Central Pollution Control Board: Draft Guidelines for Environmentally Sound

Management of Electronic Waste, Chapter 3, Ministry of Environment & Forests,

Government of India.

Greenpeace: Where does e-waste end up?

Jagannath Das: E-Waste, Term Paper on International Marketing.

Dr.Nil, 2005: Study: E-waste dumping victimizes developing nations, 29 October,

www.techarena.in.

Surendra Gangan, 2007: State mulls law for e-waste disposal, DNA, November

2007.

Sankar Radhakrishnan, 2007: The smart way to tackle e-waste, Business Line,

January 2007.

E-waste: Swiss e-waste competence.

Electronic waste, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, www.wikipedia.org,

20 January,2008.

Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP), from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,

www.wikipedia.org, 18 December, 2007.

WEEE Stakeholders, 2008, MoEF.

Rolf Widmer, Heidi Oswld-Krapf, Deepali Sinha-Khetriwal, Max Schnellmann,

Heinz Boni (2005), Global Perspectives on e-waste, Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 25 (2005) 436-458, ELSEVIER

Annexure 1

The hazardous substances in WEEE, their occurrence and impacts

Substance Occurrence in e-waste Environmental and Health relevance

Halogenated compounds:

PCB(polychlorinated

biphenyls)

Condensers, transformers Cause cancer, effects on the immune

system, reproductive system, nervous

system, endocrine system and other

health effects.

Persistent and bioaccumulatable

TBBA(tetrabromo-

bisphenol-A)

PBB(polybrominated

biphenyls)

PBDE(polybrominated

diphenyl ethers)

Fire retardants for plastics

(thermoplastic components,

cable insulation)

TBBA is presently the most

widely used flame retardant in

printed wiring boards and

covers for components

Can cause long-term period injuries to

health

Acute poisonous when burned

Chlorofluorocarbon

(CFC)

Cooling unit, insulation foam Combustion of halogenated substances

may cause toxic emissions.

PVC(polyvinyl chloride) Cable insulation High temperature processing of cables

may release chlorine, which is converted

to dioxins and furans.

Heavy metals and other metals:

Arsenic Small quantities in the form of

gallium arsenide within light

emitting diodes

Acutely poisonous and on a long-term

perspective injurious to health

Barium Getters in CRT May develop explosive gases(hydrogen)

if wetted

Beryllium Power supply boxes which

contain silicon controlled

rectifiers, beam line

components

Harmful if inhaled

Cadmium Rechargeable NiCd-batteries,

fluorescent layer(CRT screens),

printer inks and toners,

photocopying machines (photo

drums)

Acutely poisonous and injurious to

health on a long-term perspective

Chromium VI Data tapes, floppy disks Acutely poisonous and injurious to

health on a long-term perspective

causes allergic reactions

Gallium arsenide Light-emitting diode(LED) Injurious to health

Lead CRT screens, batteries, printed

wiring boards

Causes damage to the nervous system,

circulatory system, kidneys causes

learning disabilities in children

Lithium Li-batteries May develop explosive gases(hydrogen)

if wetted

Mercury Is found in the fluorescent

lamps that provide backlighting

in LCDs, in some alkaline

batteries and mercury wetted

switches

Acutely poisonous and injurious to

health on a long-term perspective

Nickel Rechargeable NiCd-batteries or

NiMH-batteries, electron gun

in CRT

May cause allergic reactions

Rare earth elements

(Yttrium, Europium)

Fluorescent layer(CRT screen) Irritates skin and eyes

Selenium Older photocopying machines

(photo drums)

Exposure to high level may cause

adverse health effects

Zinc sulphide Is used on the interior of a CRT

screen, mixed with rare earth

metals

Toxic when inhaled

Others:

Toxic organic

substances

Condensers, liquid crystal

display

Toner dust Toner cartridges for laser

printers/copiers

Health risk when dust is inhaled, risk of

explosion

Radioactive substances

Americium

Medical equipment, fire

detectors, active sensing

element in smoke detectors

May cause cancer when inhaled

Source: Report on Assessment of Electronic Wastes in Mumbai-Pune Area, Maharashtra Pollution Control

Board, March 2007

Annexure II

Table: Initiatives tackling the WEEE issues from various perspectives

Initiatives Description

Basel Convention and Basel Ban

A global agreement regulating movements of hazardous wastes,

including WEEE, between countries, in force since 1992. However,

an Amendment to the Convention, commonly known as the Basel

Ban, which calls for prohibiting the export of hazardous waste from

OECD to non-OECD countries, is still to come into force.

StEP initiative

(solving the e-waste problem)

A UN-led initiative started in 2004 at the 'Electronic Goes Green'

Conference in Berlin to build an international platform to exchange

and develop knowledge on WEEE systems among countries to

enhance and coordinate various efforts around the world on the

reverse supply chain (StEP 2005).

Basel Action Network (BAN),

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

(SVTC) and computer take back

campaign

A network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the US

working together on WEEE issues, including international advocacy

for the Basel Ban, domestic collection and recycling events as well

as investigative research to promote national solutions for hazardous

waste management.

WEEE Forum

Founded in 2002, the WEEE Forum is a group of representatives of

voluntary collective WEEE take-back systems in Europe, taking

care of individual producers' responsibility in Europe.

National Electronics Product

Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI)

A multi-stakeholder dialogue to develop the framework of a national

WEEE management system in the USA. The NEPSI dialogue

includes representatives from electronics manufacturers, retailers,

state and local governments, recyclers, environmental groups, and

others.

Electronics Product Stewardship

Canada (EPS Canada)

EPS Canada was created to work with both industry and government

to develop a flexible, workable Canadian solution. An industry-led

organization, the founding members are 16 leading electronics

manufacturers.

ERP (European Recycling

Platform)

Set up at the end of 2002 by Hewlett Packard, Sony, Braun and

Electrolux to enable the producers to comply with the WEEE

directive. It aims to evaluate, plan and operate a pan-European

platform for recycling and waste management services.

Seco/ Empa e-waste programme

A project set up in 2003 by seco (Swiss State Secretariat for

Economic Affairs) and implemented by Empa (Swiss Federal

Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research) in cooperation

with a number of local partners and authorities, to assess and

improve WEEE recycling systems in different parts of the world by

analyzing the systems and by exchanging on recycling techniques

and frameworks.

Annexure III: IBS Survey

IBS, Kolkata and Webel have taken an initiative to address this issue from the developing

countries‟ perspective. Consultation process had begun in early 2008 and on 25th

April a

brain storming session involving different stake holders was held at Webel Bhavan. It has

been decided to undertake a pilot study to know how different IT firms operating from

Sector V at Salt Lake City Kolkata, manage their „e-waste‟.

Primary data was collected, during January –March, 2009, using the following

questionnaire, which was forwarded to over 200 organizations in Sector V, Salt Lake

City. Very few showed any interest and only 8 responses were received. IBS students

Devangi Parekh and Upal Sen conducted the survey under the guidance of Dr Dipankar

Dey.

Preliminary Findings:

BNKE Solutions Pvt Ltd has recorded an e-waste of 800 Kg (2001-2007) and

281.12 Kg in 2007-2008. IBM INDIA PVT LTD has recorded an e-waste of 905

Kg 2006-2007 and 1140 Kg in 2007-2008.

Nondestructive Test Appliances Pvt Ltd has recorded e-waste of 100 Kg 2006-

2007 and 90 Kg in 2007-2008.

While BNKE, WIPRO, IBM, Tekverity, NSN and IBS Kolkata mentioned that

they have separate designated location for storing e-waste, Nondestructive Test

Appliances Ltd. and Global Systems Technologies told that they did not have

the same

Wipro, IBM and NTA responded that they have a system of disposing the e-

waste but the others did not have any similar system. Global Systems

Technologies and NSN mentioned that they were not aware of any such agent

through which it could dispose its waste. Moreover they did not generate enough

e-waste to justify installing a separate system to dispose of the same as well as the

fact that they had not given it enough thought to it.

Among all the respondents only IBM reused approximately 10-20% of its total

e-waste. This was also supported by the fact that IBM felt that there was a

demand for reusable e-waste in the market

Plans to minimize generation of e-waste by different companies were as follows:

QUESTIONNAIRE

A SURVEY ON PRODUCTION, DISPOSAL AND UTILISATION OF e-WASTE IN

SALTLAKE

SECTOR – V, KOLKATA

1.0 Name of the Company:

1.1 Address: Corporate: Local:

1.2 Telephone: i) Land: Fax no.

ii) Mobile: e-mail :

1.3 Name of Respondent :

1.4 Designation:

1.5 Please indicate about ownership of Company

Govt. ……………….. J.V. ……….. Private ……………

2.0 Please furnish the following information regarding your organization

Unit no. Date of incorporation In business since

1.

2.

3.

4.

2.1 Please furnish the quantity of e-Waste* generated in your company (in weights) in

the following years:

Year kilogram

BNKE WIPRO IBM NTA

Over the years ha

reduced the use of

computer

consumables like

CDs, DVDs, etc

substantially

Minimise e-

waste

generation

Switching off

power to computer

monitors, ACs,

lights to increase

set life of the

component to

generate e-waste

By educating the

employees to

save every e-

component by

timely preventive

maintenance

Till 2006-07

2007-08

2.2 Please tell us what percentage of the e-waste generated by you belongs to

the following categories:

percentage

e-waste generated due to technology obsolescence

( e.g.: stopping use of PIII PC for PIV or higher

configurations PC)

e-waste generated as scrap

(e.g.: dysfunctional CD, floppy, monitor etc.)

other (please specify in brief what type of e-waste):

2.3 Please furnish the breakup of e-waste generated by your organization based on the

following table:

WEIGHT( in Kilograms)

YEAR

1 2 3 4 5 6

Till 2006-

07

2007-08

1. ITC (IT and Telecommunication waste)

2. CE (Consumer electronics)

3. Lighting

4. E & E Tools ( Electronic and electrical tools)

5. M & C (Monetary and Control equipments)

6. Misc.

2.4 Do you have a separate designated location for storing e-waste?

1.YES

2.NO

2.5 Is there any system of disposing the e-waste in your organization?

1.YES

2.NO

If “YES” then skip to question 2.8 else continue

2.6 For how many years have the e-waste been left indisposed?

2.7 Which of the following can be stated as a reason for not having disposed

the e-waste?

1.We are not aware of any authorized disposal agent

2.We have not yet given it a thought

3. We do not think we generate enough e-waste that needs

disposal

4.Others(please specify in brief):

2.8 E-waste disposal is done through whom?

1.Authorized disposal agent

2.Others(please specify in brief):

2.9 Please indicate the percentage of e-waste generated that is reused (through

donation to non-profit organizations or any other such way):

2.9 Is there a demand for such reuse in the market?

1.YES

2.NO

3.0 Please furnish the breakup of re-usage of e-waste generated by your

organization based on the following table:

WEIGHT (in Kilogram)

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6

Til 2006-07

2007-08

1. ITC (IT and Telecommunication waste)

2. CE (Consumer electronics)

3. Lighting

4. E & E Tools ( Electronic and electrical tools)

5. M & C (Monetary and Control equipments)

6. Misc

3.1 Would you like to install a system of effective e-waste

disposal in your organization?

1.YES

2.NO

If “YES” then please specify how would you like your e-waste to be suitably

disposed?

3.2 Do you have any plans to minimize the generation of e-waste by your

Organization?

1.YES

2.NO

If “YES” then please specify how?

1. Please indicate your level of agreement for the following statements by marking

each statement on the following scale:

Completely agree 4.Agree somewhat 3.Neither Agree or Disagree 2.Disagree

Somewhat 1.Completely Disagree

1.It is important to effectively manage e-waste

2.It is profitable to manage and reuse/resell e-waste

3.India has got laws sufficient enough to regulate e-waste

4. E-waste management is an important function of our organization

5.The e-waste disposal systems available at present are sufficient for our e-

waste needs

6.E-waste management is not important for us since we produce very little

e-waste

7.We have well defined norms about how to manage our e-waste

Date: Signature:

Please return this questionnaire to:

End of Questionnaire

*Note: The space provided for the open-ended questions in the original

questionnaire to collect data has been removed here.

Annexure IV: The ‘Ecomark’

`Ecomark'

To increase consumer awareness, the Government of India launched the eco-labeling

scheme known as `Ecomark' in 1991 for easy identification of environment-friendly

products. Any product which is made, used or disposed of in a way that significantly

reduces the harm it would otherwise cause the environment could be considered as

Environment-Friendly Product.

The criteria follow a cradle-to-grave approach, i.e. from raw material extraction, to

manufacturing, and to disposal. The „Ecomark‟ label is awarded to consumer goods

which meet the specified environmental criteria and the quality requirements of Indian

Standards. Any product with the Ecomark will be the right environmental choice.

The specific objectives of the scheme are as follows :

To provide an incentive for manufacturers and importers to reduce adverse

environmental impact of products.

To reward genuine initiatives by companies to reduce adverse environmental

impact of their products.

To assist consumers to become environmentally responsible in their daily lives by

providing information to take account of environmental factors in their purchase

decisions.

To encourage citizens to purchase products which have less harmful

environmental impacts.

Ultimately to improve the quality of the environment and to encourage the

sustainable management of resources.

16 product categories were covered under the scheme which includes Batteries and

Electrical/Electronic goods. Till date no ecomarked product is available in the market.

Source: CPCB, MoEF, GoI

Annexure V: The Bangalore Initiative

In Bangalore, an initiative with active support of the German and Swiss Government was

initiated in 2002. The details are as under.

HAWA Project Activities + Achievements in E-waste Management 2002 to 2005

Seminars for Awareness Creation

Studies on existing situation in Bangalore

Cooperation with NGOs. e.g. Saahas: batteries, fluorescent light tubes

KSPCB: batteries collection initiative

HAWA: Hazardous wastes from households

Agencies involved

E-Waste initiative in Bangalore is supported by

KSPCB and DFEE, Govt. Karnataka

GTZ-ASEM through HAWA Project, German Govt.

SECO-EMPA Swiss Govt.

HAWA Project Set-up

Implementing Agency:

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB)

Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment (DFEE)

Technically Assisted by: GTZ - German Technical Cooperation

Consulting Company: ERM GmbH, Frankfurt

Funded by: German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development

Features:

Phases Contribution German Govt. Main Achievements Period

Phase 1

3 Yr

2.2 million Euro Conceptual planning:

HW mgt. system,

Facilities, EIA, Feas.

study (GTZ KfW),

Tender docs,

Contracts,

Stakeholder

consultation.

June 2001 – July 2004

Phase 2

3 Yr

1.5 million Euro Implementation:

Tender, TSDF

construction (landfill,

etc.), Recycling (e-

waste etc.),

contamin.sites

remediation.

August 2004 – July 2007

Activities by CPCB, EMPA, GTZ

Rapid City Assessment Study E-waste in New Delhi

New Delhi March 2004 National Conference on E-waste Management

(MoEF, CPCB)

Toxics Link, other NGOs

Cooperation with MAIT, other associations

Cooperation with several IT Companies

Rapid City Assessment Study E-waste in Bangalore

EWA - E-Waste Agency Bangalore

EWA was created and is active in Bangalore as a model institution for the management

of e-waste for the entire country since 2005: Now 1 year of activities

The idea of a Nodal Agency: MAIT, KSPCB in March 2005

Support by KSPCB (Chairman, MS, SEO)

EWA Established on 12 May 2005 by a group of IT industries, HAWA-

GTZ-KSPCB, CPCB, CSD and NGOs

Inaugurated September 2005 in Bangalore, presentation at MoEF in September

2005

Encouraged by MoEF, CPCB, SPCBs

Members of EWA: CSD, CPCB, ITs, MAIT, NASSCOM, KSPCB, HAWA-GTZ,

EMPA-SECO

By-laws, charter, declaration of founder members (May 2005)

EWA Managing Committee since 13th September 2005, regular meetings

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annexure VI: Battery (Management & Handling) Rules 20015

In India, even before the Basel Ban there was judicial action to stop flow of hazardous

wastes in to country .In April 1996 the High court of New Delhi had banded imports of

toxics wastes in to India.

Batteries have a useful working life after which they are “spent”, but can and need to be

Recycled.

Recovered lead meets about one- third of Indian lead consumption. This however is far

below the international average, which is about 55 percent. Furthermore, as Indian lead

consumption volume has grown at over 10 percent annually during last decade and it has

outpaced lead supply growth and thus generated a significant domestic supply-demand

gap of lead that needed to be bridged by imports of primary lead and lead bearing

products as well as by partial lead recovery in the informal sector. Against this

background, the Government of India drafted the Battery (Management and Handling)

Rules in 2000 for regularizing control and collection of used lead acid batteries. This rule

was enacted on May 16. 2001 and operate under periphery of the Environment Protection

Act, 1986.

5 Arjun Dutta, 2001, Greening the … CUTS

Major features of Battery (Management & Handling) Rules 2001

1. "One - to - one" collections

2. Covers battery manufacturers, dealers, importers of new batteries, battery assemblers,

reconditioners, lead recycling units and auctioners / bulk consumers

3. Safe collection and transport

4. Ecolabelling

5. Auction of used batteries only in favour of registered recyclers

6. Collection of batteries 50 percent in first year, 75 percent in second Year and 90 percent

from third year onwards.

7. Batteries have been categorised

The battery industry in India falls into two distinct sectors, the "organized" or "formal

sector" and the "unorganized" or "informal" sector. The organized sector comprises major

battery manufacturers like Exide, Amara Raja, Amco followed by about 16 medium and

small scale manufacturers. Besides this there are numerous battery reconditioners in the

informal sector. The sector also includes a substantial number of 'night birds' (fly by night

or "cowboy" illegal operators) and unregistered units

According to the small scale battery manufacturers association, the informal sector provides employment to approximate 12 million people as battery smelters, recyclers and reconditioners. This information was provided at the National Consultation and Expert Group meeting organized on February 16, 2001 in New Delhi. However, the small producers apprehended that the new Battery Rules would wipe out their existence, as they felt that they did not get adequate representation when the new legislation was being formulated

The small firms had two apprehensions about the draft Battery Rules .First, they felt that

they might not be in a position to ensure that the number of old/used battery collected

from the consumers and / or customers should be equal to the number of new battery sold

or exported

Second they would have to use a recycle symbol indicating that the Battery was made

from recycled lead .They felt that this might prohibit sales of batteries manufactured by

them as domestic as well as bulk consumers might start differentiating between batteries

made from virgin leads and recycled lead though, performance wise, both were equal.