Ship with Care

The export of electronic scrap continues to generate controversy in the eyes of many stakeholders, from electronics manufactures to corporate consumers of electronics to nongovernmental organizations to recyclers themselves. The lack of government oversight in this area has led some electronics recyclers to claim an uneven playing field, as some disreputable players ship nonworking units overseas under the pretext of re-use. These devices may be recycled through a cottage industry that lacks the technology and the environmental and worker protections to safely recover the valuable raw materials contained within them.

A bill recently introduced to the House of Representatives by U.S. Reps. Gene Green and Mike Thompson, if passed, intends to lessen the ambiguity in the area of electronic scrap exports, helping to level the playing field for recyclers in the United States. H.R. 6252, the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act of 2010, would make it illegal for U.S. companies to send toxic electronic scrap to developing nations.

PERCEIVING A NEED

“For several years, my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson and I have been active in drafting legislation that would provide the regulatory framework needed to properly and responsibly address electronic waste disposal and management in our country,” said Congressman Gene Green during a Sept. 30 media briefing on the proposed legislation.

In contrast to countries like those in the European Union, Green said, “The United States does not have a comprehensive national approach for the export of used electronics.” He said the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act of 2010 would provide “the regulatory framework needed to address this dire situation.”

In addition to preventing hazardous materials from being shipping to developing countries where they could be mishandled, Green said the bill also should be thought of as a green jobs bill. He added that domestic recyclers who properly handle the electronic devices they receive had a hard time competing against recycling facilities overseas who have few, if any, environmental and labor standards. “This bill would level the playing field and result in growth in our domestic recycling industry that handles and processes waste safely,” Green added.

Acknowledging that the bill may not meet with support from all interested parties, Green said he hoped these stakeholders would remain engaged with the congressmen on this issue.

The bill enjoys the support of electronics manufacturers, including Dell, Apple and Samsung. The Electronics TakeBack Coalition is among the environmental groups that also are advocating for its passage.

LEGISLATING RESPONSIBILTY

“This e-waste export bill will stem the tide of the toxic techno-trash sent from the U.S. to developing countries around the world,” Barbara Kyle, national coordinator of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition says in a press release announcing the introduction of the bill. “Right now, consumers can’t tell whether their local recycler will actually recycle their old products or dump them on the developing countries—and this bill will solve that problem as well as create new recycling jobs here in the U.S.”

At the Sept. 30 media briefing, Mark Newton, director of sustainable business at Dell, Round Rock, Texas, said, “We absolutely support the overarching goals of this legislation.”

He added, “In May of 2009, Dell became the first major computer manufacturer to ban the export of nonworking electronics to developing countries. At that time we were the only major manufacturer to have an e-waste export ban written into our disposition policy and we called on others in the industry to follow our lead.” Newton said that only a “handful” of electronics manufacturers had done so to date. “It’s imperative that nonworking electronics be recycled in places that have the infrastructure in place to recycle them properly,” he added.

“At Dell, it is our hope that legislation such as that proposed by Reps. Green and Thompson today gives consumers confidence that the systems they return in good faith for recycling will be managed responsibly,” Newton concluded.

Robert Hougton, president of Columbus, Ohio-based Redemtech Inc., also spoke during the media briefing. Redemtech is an e-Stewards certified IT asset disposition company. “Recycling is a word that gets used quite loosely,” he said. “Today e-waste exporters are contributing to pollution in developing countries where lack of regulation improves their profits.”

While the companies recyclers serve often wished to be responsible corporate citizens, they were being defrauded by recyclers who claimed to offer responsible recycling but who make their money supporting “recycling sweat shops overseas,” he said.

Houghton added that the electronics recycling industry in the United States was one of the few industries that began by outsourcing work abroad. “With this legislation, we have the opportunity to bring these jobs back to America and to do the right thing socially and environmentally as well, and that is why Redemtech is so strongly in favor of the legislation.”

The legislation would add a new section to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), establishing a new category of “restricted electronic waste” that could not be exported from the United States to developing nations.

EXPANDING RCRA

RCRA gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from generation to disposal, which includes transportation, treatment and storage. The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act of 2010 would expand RCRA to include covered electronic devices, whether whole or in fragments:

• That contain or are derived from the following in more than a de minimus amount, as determined by the EPA—
  • Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) or CRT glass in any form or CRT phosphor residues or dusts in any form; Lamps or devices containing mercury phosphor;
  • Batteries;
  • Switches or other devices containing mercury in elemental or compound form;
  • Capacitors, transformers, light ballasts or other devices containing or suspected of containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and
  • Parts, components or assemblies or materials derived there from containing hexavalent chromium or beryllium (in elemental or compound form);
• That include, contain, are derived from or consist of—
  • Circuit boards containing lead, cadmium or beryllium in elemental or compound form;
  • Printer drums or other devices containing selenium in elemental or compound form;
  • Liquid crystal displays, flat-screen glass, light emitting diodes (LEDs) or other devices containing arsenic in elemental or compound form; or
  • Parts, components or assemblies or materials derived there from containing antimony, barium, cadmium, chromium (other than hexavalent chromium), lead, thallium, beryllium, arsenic or selenium; or
• Any other covered electronic equipment parts, components or assemblies or materials derived there from containing any other toxic material identified by the EPA that should be added to the definition.

The prohibitions would exclude covered electronic devices or parts that are tested prior to export and are found to be functional for their intended purpose or, in the case of “multi-function devices,” fully functional for at least one of the primary purposes for which the equipment or parts were designed. These devices must be appropriately packaged and labeled for shipment. Products subject to recall, processed leaded glass cullet that has been prepared as feedstock for a glass-to-glass recycling plant in a country that does not classify it as a hazardous waste; and products covered by manufacturer warranties that are going back to their manufacturers also would be excepted from the legislation.

Violations of the bill could result in criminal penalties, and companies violating the law would be posted to a public registry under the legislation.

A QUESTION OF TIMING

The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act of 2010 was introduced to the House of Representatives on Sept. 29, at which time it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. With the 111th Congress soon coming to a close, some may question the fate of the bill in the months to come.

However, Thompson said timing was irrelevant when agreement had been found among stakeholders. “No matter what happens in the 111th Congress, we’ve, I think, made a lot of progress,” he said in the media briefing. “From my perspective, I think we are moving in the right direction.”

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