320
The workers handling E-waste were vocal about their working environment and
questionable safety standards, and most of them were aware of the resultant occupational health risks, but as they were not much educated, they had little options to
leave the job at hand. It was seen that they were in continuous contact with the
chemicals, faced improper ventilation and worked without use of personal protection equipment leading to direct exposure to hazardous chemicals. Crude means like
hammers, chisels, hand drills, cutters, electric torches, etc. are used for dismantling
the E-waste. Some units use unsophisticated mechanical separators, along with
screening and granulating machines for separating constituent metal and plastic
fractions. This system is way bit safer as the recycling happens at an enclosed area
and has rudimentary dust collection system with screens and scrubbers.
In spite of long working hours of about 10–12 h of shift in a dingy environment,
amidst severe chemical exposure, the monetary return is meagre for which many
workers engage their family members including under-age children to increase the
output as well as the wage earned.
The informal practice of E-waste handling involves open burning of plastics and
continuous exposure to toxic metals, and there is rampant mixing of acid and other
contaminants with municipal wastes. This adversely affects land, air and water and
has dire environmental consequences and associated health impact. But as manual
labour is cheap due to high population density and access to sophisticated recycling
is limited, the vicious circle continues.
The governmental agencies do not have any precise documented information
about E-waste generation in the city; on the basis of the vague figures, they are
implementing several policies which are not being much fruitful.
18.11 Much Required Integration
The stakeholders involved in the chain almost follow the E-waste value chain proposed by Borthakur and Singh (2012): (a) production segment, involving manufacturers, retailers and vendors; (b) user segment, pertaining household and institutional
(government, business, educational); (c) aggregating segment, constituting of rag
pickers, kabadiwallahs and local small E-waste dealers (LSEWD); and (d) recycling
segment, comprising of scrap collectors, scrap dismantlers and smelters, large
E-waste dealers (LEWD) and recyclers.
The dismal scenario is changing at a faster pace now with the formal recyclers
entering the scene and high-end recycling envisaging efficiency in the processing of
waste and the recovery of a high-quality product. But such units are unable to access
the materials due to the informal collectors who are able to reach for the door-todoor collection and are able to pay a good price for the E-waste in comparison to the
formal recyclers; for the latter, mostly the consumers have to bear the costs for collection (Fig. 18.5).
A. Basu
The workers handling E-waste were vocal about their working environment and
questionable safety standards, and most of them were aware of the resultant occupational health risks, but as they were not much educated, they had little options to
leave the job at hand. It was seen that they were in continuous contact with the
chemicals, faced improper ventilation and worked without use of personal protection equipment leading to direct exposure to hazardous chemicals. Crude means like
hammers, chisels, hand drills, cutters, electric torches, etc. are used for dismantling
the E-waste. Some units use unsophisticated mechanical separators, along with
screening and granulating machines for separating constituent metal and plastic
fractions. This system is way bit safer as the recycling happens at an enclosed area
and has rudimentary dust collection system with screens and scrubbers.
In spite of long working hours of about 10–12 h of shift in a dingy environment,
amidst severe chemical exposure, the monetary return is meagre for which many
workers engage their family members including under-age children to increase the
output as well as the wage earned.
The informal practice of E-waste handling involves open burning of plastics and
continuous exposure to toxic metals, and there is rampant mixing of acid and other
contaminants with municipal wastes. This adversely affects land, air and water and
has dire environmental consequences and associated health impact. But as manual
labour is cheap due to high population density and access to sophisticated recycling
is limited, the vicious circle continues.
The governmental agencies do not have any precise documented information
about E-waste generation in the city; on the basis of the vague figures, they are
implementing several policies which are not being much fruitful.
18.11 Much Required Integration
The stakeholders involved in the chain almost follow the E-waste value chain proposed by Borthakur and Singh (2012): (a) production segment, involving manufacturers, retailers and vendors; (b) user segment, pertaining household and institutional
(government, business, educational); (c) aggregating segment, constituting of rag
pickers, kabadiwallahs and local small E-waste dealers (LSEWD); and (d) recycling
segment, comprising of scrap collectors, scrap dismantlers and smelters, large
E-waste dealers (LEWD) and recyclers.
The dismal scenario is changing at a faster pace now with the formal recyclers
entering the scene and high-end recycling envisaging efficiency in the processing of
waste and the recovery of a high-quality product. But such units are unable to access
the materials due to the informal collectors who are able to reach for the door-todoor collection and are able to pay a good price for the E-waste in comparison to the
formal recyclers; for the latter, mostly the consumers have to bear the costs for collection (Fig. 18.5).
A. Basu