Kill Your Television

The transition to digital broadcasting threatens a wave of obsolete televisions, but what can recyclers really expect and what are TV manufacturers doing in anticipation of the conversion?

It’s been a long-time coming, but less than a year from now on Feb. 17, 2009, full-power television stations will no longer use analog signals to broadcast programming to American homes. This digital television (DTV) conversion has brought with it a variety of projections regarding the

Online Sidebar - Greener by Design

Click here to view online only sidebar

number of analog television sets that will be affected as well as a campaign urging television manufactures to take back and recycle the television sets they’ve produced throughout the years as consumers upgrade to new flat-screen and high-definition models. Some manufacturers have introduced and are funding initiatives to facilitate the recycling of their branded end-of-life televisions.

While some organizations have predicted "tidal waves" and "tsunamis" of televisions as a result of the DTV conversion, American consumers have a number of options apart from discarding their television sets next February.

LOSING THE SIGNAL

The conversion to digital broadcasting began in 1996 when the U.S. Congress authorized the distribution of an additional broadcast channel to each full-power television station to begin a digital broadcast channel, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on its DTV Web site at www.dtv.gov/consumer
corner.html.

According to the FCC, the switch to digital broadcasting will free up portions of the broadcast spectrum for public safety announcements. Portions of the spectrum will also be auctioned to companies that will offer advanced wireless services.

Consumers will experience improved picture and sound quality as a result of digital broadcasting, which is also more efficient than analog broadcasting and allows for multi-casting. Using multi-casting, broadcasters can offer several channels of digital programming at the same time, using the same amount of the spectrum needed for one analog program.

Consumers with analog televisions who subscribe to cable, satellite or fiber optic services should not be affected by the conversion to digital broadcasting. However, those consumers who rely on roof-top antennas for their television service will either need to replace their analog television sets with digital TVs or purchase set-top converter boxes to continue receiving the over-the-air signal.

The federal government has set up the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Coupon Program to help consumers with the DTV conversion. Through the program, each U.S. household can receive up to two $40 coupons toward the purchase of eligible converter boxes. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA, www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon) manages the program, which runs from Jan. 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. According to the FCC, converter boxes will cost from $40 to $70 each.

While these numbers are straightforward, the number of televisions that will be affected by the DTV conversion is far from clear.

DETERMINING THE EFFECT

David A. Thompson, director of Panasonic’s corporate environmental department, based in Secaucus, N.J., says 12 to 15 percent of U.S. households will be affected by the conversion to DTV. Currently, more than 85 percent of American households get their primary television service from either satellite or telecommunications or cable providers, he says.

"The other thing that is worth considering is that about 50 percent of American households already have digital televisions," Thompson adds. "What we don’t know is what proportion get their signals over the air already have digital TVs."

Parker Brugee, senior director and environmental counsel for the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), Arlington, Va., says 11 percent of U.S. households, or 13 percent of all installed televisions in the United States, receive their broadcast signals over the air. More than 300 million televisions are installed throughout the country, he adds.

Even if U.S. consumers decide against purchasing converter boxes for their affected televisions, Brugee says it is unlikely they will discard their televisions, opting instead to keep them for another use, such as DVD viewing or gaming.

Barbara Kyle, national coordinator of the Take Back My TV Campaign, a project of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, San Francisco, quotes a Consumer Reports figure from 2006 that suggests 80 million televisions, or 42 million U.S. homes, rely on antennas for their television signals. "It is a bit of a guessing game," she says of the actual number of analog sets that could be affected by the DTV conversion, adding that industry figures vary from 15 million to 30 million sets.

"I am reluctant to try to predict the future," Thompson says of the actual number of televisions that could be affected by the DTV conversion. "I don’t think we necessarily have to perceive a doom-and-gloom scenario here. I think the actual impact will be smaller than people are being led to believe," he adds.

Jason Linnell, executive director of the National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER), Davisville, W. Va., says NCER collection events have shown an increase in TVs collected from 2006 to 2007. Instead of a huge wave of televisions as a result of the DTV conversion, it’s more gradual and likely the result of consumers trading up to flat screens as a result of their falling prices, he says.

Panasonic has been collecting TVs in Maine, and Thompson says the numbers show a slight increase in the number of televisions turned in for recycling. According to 2006 figures, the collection events yielded 2.01 pounds per person, while 2007 figures reveal that 2.22 pounds per person were collected. "That doesn’t strike me as a tremendous increase in Maine," he says.

While the number of TVs that will be affected by the DTV conversion may be difficult to accurately estimate, the fate of these televisions also can vary widely based on state rules and regulations governing recycling and landfill disposal of these devices.

TUNING INTO RECYCLING

Half a dozen states ban the disposal of CRTs and video display devices in landfills, including California, Maine, Massachusetts and Minnesota.

The cost and availability of recycling options for television sets can also vary widely across the country. "Really, the recycling options are far from ideal," Kyle says. "Part of the answer depends on where you live."

Roxanne Smith, a press officer with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), says, "Most opportunities to recycle TVs are localized and periodic. Some communities offer free recycling drop offs. In other communities, residents need to pay a small fee to cover the cost of recycling their unwanted TVs."

Linnell says recycling options for televisions are hit and miss. He points to the fact that a number of states have passed mandatory electronics recycling laws, though many are still in the process of coming on line. Once these programs have ramped up, he says, more than one-third of the United States will be covered by mandatory electronics recycling laws.

To help consumers find recycling options in their areas, the FCC is directing consumers to www.mygreenelectronics.org, a Web site managed by the CEA. The site includes information on retailers’ collection events, manufacturer initiatives and local recycling companies.

For residents of states that have introduced legislation establishing electronics recycling programs, including California, Maine and Minnesota, recycling opportunities may be easier to come by. However, according to EPA figures, only 15 percent of electronics are recycled.

Bob Erie, CEO of E-World Recyclers, an electronics recycling company based in Vista, Calif., says discarded televisions typically contain cathode ray tubes, or CRTs. "The CRT is composed of approximately 22 percent lead and has been deemed hazardous waste by a number of individual state governments, so therefore an array of recycling opportunities exists when it comes to safe and environmentally friendly disposal," he says.

"The costs associated range from state to state and this is one reason why the industry is pushing for some unilateral or national type of legislation," Erie adds. "For instance, in some sates there are programs in place to provide free and convenient recycling opportunities to the residents. In other areas, there are no programs, and fees can range from $10 to $25 a unit."

Despite the growth in state laws mandating electronics recycling, certain areas still lack television recycling options, Linnell says. The bulkiness of the televisions and the cost to recycle these devices is part of the problem. "Their low-grade circuit boards are not as valuable as those in computers. And you have the added burden of the CRT glass." He adds, "Overall, recycling TVs is a cost."

Television recycling does not yield the same high-value streams of raw materials that computer recycling does, nor can television recyclers tap into the component recovery and resale market for product refurbishment. "TVs are in a situation where the value of the materials does not cover the cost of collecting them, transporting them and disassembling them," Thompson says.

E-World’s Erie says markets are dependent on the ability of recyclers to create value by means of effective separation. "There are no U.S. markets per se, which is to say there are no companies in the U.S. who currently manufacture products that can be made from secondhand CRT glass," he says.

"CRT glass is typically a ‘pay per pound’ item that carries a base cost of disposal at around 10 cents per pound," Erie continues. "Foreign sales are an option. There are several CRT manufacturers still using surplus CRT glass to manufacture new CRT devices; however, the glass must meet stringent separation criteria in which the leaded glass is separated from the non-leaded glass."

While demand for leaded glass from CRTs exists in Asia, the longevity of these markets is uncertain. "All I can say is that there is currently large

State Mandates

California’s pioneering electronics recycling legislation was passed in 2003. Since that law was enacted in 2005, a number of other states have passed legislation that mandates the recycling of electronic devices.

The difference between California’s law and legislation passed in states such as Oregon, Maine and New Jersey is the source of funding. California’s program uses an advanced recovery fee (ARF), which the consumer pays at the time of purchase. The nine other states with legislation, however, use variations on producer responsibility to fund their electronics recycling programs.

"The ARF ship has sailed," Barbara Kyle, national coordinator of the Take Back My TV Campaign, a project of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, San Francisco says. Producer responsibility has been firmly embraced as the popular funding model, but different states have different requirements concerning the goals and performance measures manufacturers have to meet, she says.

Jason Linnell, executive director of the National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER), Davisville, W. Va., says each new electronics recycling law adds a variation to the producer responsibility model. He notes that some are based on manufacturers’ market share, while some use their return share as the determining factor. The laws also vary on the types of products covered and the entities that can participate in the program, with some excluding businesses.

This legislative patchwork will grow in complexity, as Linnell says, "I fully expect three to five more states to pass recycling laws this year."

Parker Brugee, senior director and environmental counsel for the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), Arlington, Va., says he would prefer to see national legislation based on the concept of shared responsibility. "Our view is that consumers have an obligation to get their electronics to some sort of collection center. We don’t think it makes sense to legislate a particular collection method," he says.

Brugee says retailers have a role to play in establishing a national program. "Retail’s obligation at a minimum is consumer education," he says. "They have readily accepted that role. Some are going beyond that and having collection events."

Local and state governments can also assist in infrastructure development, Brugee says. "Their expertise in developing that kind of collection infrastructure should be brought to bear."

He adds, "By not placing responsibility on other stakeholders, we are not going to get to the point where consumers recognize the need for this."

demand for CRT glass, especially in the Asian markets," Douglas S. Smith, director of corporate environment, safety and health for Sony, San Diego says. "They still make picture tubes. All of the CRT glass that we can process and clean in the United States is being bought and consumed by glass furnaces in Asia. How long that will last, we don’t know."

The leaded glass recovered from CRTs also can go to lead smelters to be converted into lead and primarily used for new automobile batteries, he adds.

The smelting option is challenging to do within the U.S., but the opportunity exists in other OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, such as Canada and Europe, Kyle says.

"Although there is some capacity at U.S. lead smelters for CRT glass, the largest market at present for smelting leaded CRT glass is in Canada," The EPA’s Roxanne Smith says.

Taking apart and cleaning a CRT is labor intensive and, therefore, expensive, Sony’s Smith says. With most consumers of recovered leaded CRT glass being outside the United States, transporting the cleaned recovered material to the end user also is a considerable expense. "Every step along the way, there is a cost built in," Smith says. "When glass is received at a glass furnace, it has a positive value. As far as that value trickling back to the front end of the recycling process, there is not enough to cover all of that. It’s close. It’s the same situation for the lead smelter," he says. "It is not worth as much to the lead smelter as to the glass furnace."

To forestall additional legislation at the state level, some television manufacturers are stepping up to underwrite the recycling of their televisions.

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

Sony has teamed up with Waste Management to provide a recycling program through which Sony branded products can be recycled for free, while Panasonic has partnered with Sharp Electronics Corp. and Toshiba America Consumer Products to form a joint venture company called Electronics Manufacturers Recycling Management Co. LLC (MRM) and continues to offer the Shared Responsibility Program, which it started in 2000, on a small scale with Sony, Sharp and JVC.

Panasonic’s Thompson says the Shared Responsibility Program established a number of recyclers around the county where products from participating manufacturers are recycled for free. "We were very active in California before they passed the law, so our numbers are decreasing over time," he says. The program has recycled approximately 32 million pounds of products, he adds.

Thompson says the program has not been expanded because so few manufacturers support it.

Instead, Panasonic has focused its efforts on the MRM program and establishing recycling infrastructure in Minnesota. "Really we are trying to set up the state’s only comprehensive manufacturers’ program that services the entire state. We think that no one company can solve the problem, that it is going to take a collective manufacturers’ effort to really develop a recycling system that is going to be convenient for consumers and also environmentally efficient to operate."

According to a press release announcing the formation of MRM, "In addition to planning for recycling programs in several states from late 2008 or 2009, including Connecticut, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas and Washington, MRM is also positioned to offer recycling services as needed in other states or on a national scale. Going forward MRM anticipates working with concerned stakeholders to develop a viable, long-term national solution."

Sony has also embarked on a recycling effort designed to make electronics recycling more accessible to consumers. "Obviously, mail-back programs don’t work with TVs, and we know consumers want easy access if they are expected to recycle," Smith says. To address this issue, Sony has partnered with Houston-based Waste Management Inc. (WM) to install infrastructure for drop-off locations. "The goals of the program are that 95 percent of the U.S. population will have a drop-off location within 20 miles of their homes within five years," Smith says.

WM will provide the collection and recycling services in most cases but will also use service partners in some areas of the country, such as California, where WM functions as a collector under the state’s program. Sony will underwrite the recycling of its branded products that are delivered to these collection centers.

Sony is hoping to put an end to the legislative patchwork at the state level in regard to electronics recycling. "The state patchwork is somewhat of a challenge for us," Smith says. "But we have the hopes that our program will be robust enough where we can provide this as a national solution and maybe slowdown this patchwork of state-by-state requirements." He adds, "If our program grows, it should address all the needs of state legislators."

Kyle, the national coordinator of the Take Back My TV Campaign, applauds Sony for its most recent producer responsibility initiative. She suggests the program will have to include retailers to provide true ease for consumers. "It will be hard to meet the numbers they have set for themselves unless there are retail partners," she says.

Brugee says the CEA hopes to advance efforts toward establishing a national electronics recycling system to grow additional infrastructure. "It has to be easy and convenient for consumers," he says, adding that the patchwork of state laws is confusing for consumers and global electronics companies alike. "We hope to have a national system that not necessarily preempts existing state laws but that works and that states will adopt as their own."

The author is managing editor of Recycling Today and can be contacted at dtoto@gie.net.

Get curated news on YOUR industry.

Enter your email to receive our newsletters.

Loading...
March 2008
Explore the March 2008 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.