zerowaste

   

 

Last night 60 Minutes (a CBS News investigative reporting segment) aired a piece titled “The Electronic Wasteland”.  The segment covered the devastating effects of illegal disposal of electronics overseas and illustrated the complicated dynamic of our industry.  What was at the heart of this piece was best practices for the processing of these devices, specifically the characteristically hazardous components (Printed Circuit Boards and Leaded Glass).  The environmental cost was clear in its illustration of improper disposal, but wasn't as clear was the real cost economically and why this is happening in the first place.

 

For those of you who didn’t have the opportunity to see it last night you can by clicking on the link below:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4586903n

 

In 2003 California passed landmark legislation (SB20) and subsequently SB50 legislation to prevent the disposal of Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT) in our local landfills.  Its passing came after the Department of Toxic Substance Control recognized the potential threat that the lead in these devices has to our groundwater and ultimately the health of Californians.  The DTSC also realized that if they were going to impart a landfill ban for these electronics they would need to provide funding because the value of the residual commodities would not cover the cost of proper disposal.  Thus, the Advance Recovery Program, whereby consumers pay a fee at the point of purchase (of a new CRT or FPD device) which is used to provide a FREE recycling solution at the end of life and reimburse state authorized recyclers the cost to properly recycle televisions and computer monitors.  The most important message here is that there is a steep cost for doing the right thing. 

At the same time California was passing its take back program for electronics the scrap market entered an all time high and continued to climb to record highs, thus spawning interest from some of the most unlikely and unintended entities taking interest in recovering electronics as a revenue opportunity.  The GREED around being GREEN took over and collectors of e-waste began to hold material hostage from recyclers for ransoms far beyond what the material was worth.  The cost?  Material was shipped intact to non-developed nations where they were dismantled with cheap labor and less then desirable methods in order to increase margins and profitability, and at the expense of the environment and the health of its final destination.

 

While the DTSC regulates and enforces the California program and its covered devices (CRTs and FPDs) to encourage diversion from our local landfills, the Basil Action Network, the Non-Governmental Organization featured in the 60 minutes piece, promotes the export of these materials and others (like PCBs) to under developed nations, and for a good reason (just watch the 60 minutes piece).  The intent of the BAN and its Pledge of True Stewardship is admirable; to use it as a barometer for finding a reputable outlet for electronics can be misleading.  Note that the BAN has not audited any of the recyclers who have currently signed the pledge, so while they are implementing a trial audit program, to date not one of the “stewards” could be validated by the BAN.  This means that it is quite plausible that some of these organizations are over stating their capabilities.  Additionally, the pledge does not account for real economies of scale and include immeasurable and impractical methods. These are reasons that ASL Recycling has not subscribed to its pledge for our best practices, instead we have adopted its measurable and practical components and paired it with California Regulatory measures and our client's expectations and needs. 

ASL Recycling is hoping that this coverage and exposure of the ultimate cause of improper, unregulated disposal will help elevate the importance of best practices and the cost, environmentally and financially, that we will pay.  ASL Recycling is committed to fostering best practices and has tirelessly tried to penetrate the marketplace with that philosophy, namely with the GREENetwork.  We believe in preventing the disposal of electronics and other hazardous materials in our local landfills as well as those abroad and we try to incorporate that philosophy in all of our products and services—it has been a stake in our brand.

ASL Recycling has a complete destruction process which means that we are mechanically dismantling the entire e-waste stream down to commodity streams (dark and light plastic, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, low and high grade printed circuit boards, leaded glass, etc.) WE DO NOT RESELL OR SHIP ANYTHING INTACT.  This is important because most of what ends up in landfills in non-developed nations is sent over for “reuse”, which is legal, but unfortunately, is not getting reused.  Its fate is clearly illustrated in the 60 minutes piece. 

Additionally, the material categories that we generate have no outlet except for reputable smelters.  With regards to the HAZARDOUS WASTES (leaded glass and printed circuit boards) we use the world’s most reputable outlets.  We send our glass to SAMSUNG/CORNING and they smelt the cullet down into more leaded glass and then manufacture new CRT tubes.  We send out printed circuit boards to XSTRADA (a precious metal recovery plant here in Canada). 

 

ASL Recycling has audited all of these facilities and their processes.

All of the other categories of waste (which are not characteristically hazardous or regulated) are sent to smelters or third party recyclers who specialize in those specific streams of waste (see complete downstream below).

 

We hope that more organizations that are generating or collecting electronic waste will start taking a keen interest in understanding the global impact of e-waste and become knowledgeable advocates and representatives for their respective organizations.  We also hope that this will motivate them to take an active role in auditing their processing partners and consider that even though there is a substantial cost financially in properly processing these devices, the cost to our environment could be greater if they don’t.

 

We invite and encourage our clients to come see our process and become passionate about all that goes into diverting electronics from our local landfills.

It's EASY. It's FREE. It's GREEN.

The original language in California's landmark electronic waste bill included the words "FREE" and "CONVENIENT". In 2003, when SB20 legislation was drafted, it was intended to create a program whereby a consumer's experience with e-waste recycling echoed these words.

And while California has been leading the way in creating more opportunity for e-waste recycling and helping to divert millions of pounds of hazardous material from our landfills, the average consumer remains in the dark about how to recycle their e-waste. Meanwhile their e-waste remains stockpiled in closets, garages, and storage units. We started to wonder how such a tech-savvy society could be so far behind in knowing what to do with their electronics when they were on to the next newest, smallest, coolest gadget.

A year ago if you told someone they could recycle their e-waste the first question they would probably ask is, "what is e-waste?!" While today e-waste is slowly becoming a household term when people think about their outdated PC, their CRT television hidden in the closet, the 5 cell phones in their desk drawer, we are still a long way from making it common knowledge. I like to say that the inconvenient truth about e-waste is that it has been truly inconvenient for people to recycle it, let alone conceptualize.

That is why we created the GREENetwork. The GREENetwork is a collaborative effort between California e-waste collectors, cities and municipalities, manufacturers, retailers, and ASL Recycling to provide:

- a CONVENIENT INFRASTRUCTURE of drop-off locations for consumers and businesses;
- a CONSISTENT MESSAGE about what e-waste is and how to recycle it; and
- a FREE way to recycle according to state regulations and industry best practices.

GREENsters (that's what we call people who recycle at their local GREENspot) can not only rest assured that all their personal information will be destroyed when they go their local GREENspot, they can recycle when they want to because GREENspots are permanent destinations with normal business hours.

So, how do we make a GREENster out of everyone? The GREENetwork hosts an online interactive listing of all its GREENspot drop-off locations (www.aslgreenspot.com), to which we drives consumers and businesses through a continuous mass-media campaign and public outreach. Every month we interact with local media outlets to inform them of the newest GREENspots in their areas. Additionally, we partner with the largest local news radio station in the market to reach over a million people a week with one clear message.

Today, only seven months after it was launched to the public, the GREENetwork has 100 GREENspot e-waste drop-off locations in Northern California serving 96 percent of the households in the nine-county Bay Area within 10 miles of their home, and 89 percent within 5 miles. Since its inception, the GREENetwork has been able to divert almost 10 million pounds of e-waste from local landfills and helped to educate thousands of people about what e-waste is and how to recycle it. This month we will launch the GREENetwork in Southern California and so soon we will be serving the entire state.

Here are some catchy definitions to add to your handheld gadget:

GREENetwork (green spot) n. The newest, coolest, easiest way for everyone and their mother to recycle their old, "so-last-year" e-waste. Syn. Easy

GREENster: (tree-huhg-er) n. Trend-setting, tech-savvy, hipster who understands the importance of balancing consumerism with environmentalism. Is fully aware of where their GREENspot is and how to use it. Syn. Recycler

GREENspot (zip-kohd ) n. The place you go to get rid of all that old electronic equipment that doesn't work and is taking up valuable space in your closet, garage, desk drawer. Syn. FREE

Does it pay to be a recycler in California?

California has just experienced a monumental change in the maturation of the state's Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 (SB20/SB50) . The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), which oversees the program, recently accepted its staff's recommendation to adjust the recovery and recycling fee, reducing the amount it pays to approved e-waste recyclers and collectors who participate in the program, effective July 1, 2008.

SB20 is the landmark legislation that established a funding system for the free collection and recycling of "covered electronic wastes" (CEW). (Revisions to the payment structure are required by legislation every two years, although this revision comes about a year late.)

The new payment structure is as follows:

— For CEW transferred from a collector to a recycler on or after July 1, 2008, the recovery payment will be 16 cents per pound. It was previously 20 cents per pound.

— For CEW recycling payment claims submitted to the CIWMB on or after September 16, 2008, the combined recovery and recycling payment rate will be 39 cents per pound, from 48 cents per pound.

Many people are wondering why the state made these changes, how they arrived at this decision, and what it means for the future of the program. My view is that these changes will have significant effects on the program.

Over the past year, CIWMB staff has been working to build this recommendation, which comes after a review of 'net cost reports' from approved California e-waste processors and collectors. These reports were not all that went into the decision. The CIWMB also used its own judgment to conclude that a "reasonable profit" above the net cost should average +10%. It also judged which net cost reports were outliers and should be excluded from the "representative sample". The fact is that these judgments were not defined by the regulation and had a significant effect on the outcome. A 20 percent reduction in the financial model could be the entire profit margin of a processor or collector.

While the state maintains that the decisions were not based on fund solvency, the program was flawed from the beginning in simple math and logic. The CIWMB decided three years ago that a $6, $8, or $10 per unit Advance Recovery Fee at the point of purchase would be an appropriate measure to prepare for end-of-life recycling, but ended up paying the recycler, on average, $22 per unit. Anyone can read between the lines and see that this disparity has led to a diminishing fund.

The collectors and recyclers were not and are not responsible for the disconnect between the fees collected at the point of purchase and the recovery payment rates, and yet it seems that it is collectors and recyclers that are now being called upon to take a financial hit. Approved California recyclers have had to bear the entire burden of this program. Recyclers take on all the costs, all the responsibility of making the program work, and at the end of the day are expected to take the pay cut.

The recommendation comes at a time when the e-waste business is being challenged on many fronts. Fuel costs are rising, with no end in sight. CRT technology is being displaced by flat-panel technology, making it inevitable that the cost of glass disposal will increase as the market for leaded glass diminishes. The metals market is at an all-time high and, with its historical volatility, will also likely decline.

With all these external market factors and the recent deduction in payment structure, it leaves me wondering if the original intent of the legislation — to foster a viable e-waste recycling industry — will have longevity.

The change in the recovery and recycling fees beg the following questions:

Will this lead to a reduction in the number of FREE opportunities for businesses and consumers to recycle their e-waste in a responsible way?
Most likely some collectors who have built their business on higher margins with undiversified sources of material will have a hard time surviving in this climate and will be forced out of business.

Will best practices fall by the wayside because collectors and processor are desperate to make ends meet?
With the bar to make a break-even business now higher, some e-waste processors will not be financially able to adhere to the Basil Action Network's ideas of best practices, which in many cases demand higher cost operations. Will some collectors and processors be more likely to put fraudulent material through the state program to make ends meet?

Will the state be prepared to respond with urgency when the market shifts and $0.39 per pound is just not enough for collectors and processors to stay in business?
Whether or not it was about fund solvency, it seems highly likely that unless the state is feeling the direct pressure of being in this business, it will not respond.

The CIWMB might have missed a great opportunity to build in more provisions in the regulations, along with the pricing adjustments, that would mandate it to review the payment structure more frequently and using more data.

Another point worth noting: the state will soon respond to the solvency problem by increasing the Advance Recovery Fee that is collected at the point of purchase. Consumers are already feeling the pinch from the worsening economy and will soon feel the pressure from retailers as they market new HDTVs in the face of the digital conversion in early 2009. That's a topic for a future post...

But today, as one of the largest recyclers in the very first state to undertake a legislated e-waste program, I have to ask: does it pay to be a recycler in California?

Let's get the conversation started!

As I begin to pen the first post for ZERO WASTE, the official blog of ASL Recycling, I can't help but think about the nature of blogging itself. It is one of the newest forms of communication and has allowed people to share stories, express opinions, and to even create news. You might even say that consumer electronics, from computers to iPhones and Blackberries are driving this new form of expression.

The smallest, fastest, coolest electronics play their part in fueling new forms of communication and provide us with wider perspectives and visibility across cultural divides, industries and politics, and with more efficient ways to conduct business. The downside is consumer electronic devices have created an entirely new stream of waste: e-waste.

E-waste, the fastest-growing category of municipal solid waste, is now an integral part of the consumer electronics industry, and conversations about e-waste are becoming as frequent as the release of the newest gaming device, cell phone or television.

This blog, which I’m calling Zero Waste, is intended not to be just another landing spot in cyberspace, but a meeting place where we can cut through the clutter (no pun intended) and zero in on the key aspects of this growing movement. I plan to use this forum to explore, question, explain, and analyze state and federal legislation, best practices, industry programs, consumer behavior, special interest initiatives, and new ideas — all as they relate to e-waste.

As one of the largest e-waste recyclers in the very first state to engage in an e-waste legislated program, ASL Recycling is uniquely qualified to speak on a variety of recycling topics, and to offer sound opinions and perspectives. We will ask questions that will demand our industry to take the initiative to provide as many FREE and CONVENIENT opportunities for everyone to dispose of unwanted and obsolete electronics responsibly.

Most importantly, I want this blog to be a conversation starter, a continuing dialogue that will help maintain the momentum of this environmental movement, because electronics have a place in our lives, just not in our landfills. In other words, this is not just our own customized soap box, but a platform for us all to stand on and stand up for making a difference.

I am excited to begin posting conversations on a regular basis and hope you will join me in contributing to the ZERO WASTE goals.

Carey Levine
VP Sales and Marketing
ASL Recycling/GREENetwork