Electronics

by Suna Bayrakal, Director, Policy & Programs

After Governor Jay Inslee signed Washington State’s new legislation on May 11th, it became the 10th state – plus Washington D.C. – to enact a battery EPR law. This law shows the strong and steady trend towards state battery EPR laws that include a broad scope of both single and rechargeable batteries, with best practices that are standards in all effective EPR laws – such as performance goals and convenience standards. Each passage of an EPR for batteries law has increased the types that are included: Washington is the first state to include e-mobility devices and to study the opportunities and challenges of managing large-format batteries and batteries that are embedded in products, such as electronics.

Vermont enacted the nation’s first single-use household battery EPR law in 2014, which PSI helped pass: In its first year of implementation, that state increased collection by more than 180 percent. More recently, PSI provided technical support to incorporate best practices from our model battery EPR legislation into the Washington DC law enacted in 2021, which is the first single-use and rechargeables battery EPR law in the nation that also addresses battery-containing products. PSI is currently working in New York State to amend the 2010 Rechargeable Battery Law so that it includes e-Mobility devices, in order to decrease the potential for fires that have been rampant in New York City because of lithium-ion batteries in e-bicycles. 

Last year, representatives from 10 states joined our battery stakeholder group to develop PSI’s next-generation battery EPR legislative model, elements of which were included in the California law enacted in 2022 that was championed by the California Product Stewardship Council and Californians Against Waste, which also covered single use and rechargeable batteries. 

Washington’s new law was spearheaded by Heather Trim at Zero Waste Washington and PSI’s state and local members including Megan Warfield at the Washington State Department of Ecology and McKenna Morrigan at Seattle Public Utilities. The law includes best practice elements of battery EPR legislation, which are also included in PSI’s model. This law will create a statewide battery stewardship program for Washington that is managed and sustainably funded by producers, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and removing toxic substances from the waste stream. It is consistent with EPR best practices as it includes: 

• Performance goals to drive program effectiveness. 
• Convenience standards to ensure that the program is accessible state-wide. 
• Education and outreach, including resources targeted at overburdened and vulnerable communities to raise public awareness about how to recycle batteries. 
• Annual reporting to monitor program implementation. 

The law also contains other elements of successful programs, including material fees that incentivize environmental performance, a stewardship plan, and opportunities to improve the plan as the program is implemented and matures. Local governments will have the opportunity to participate in the program and be reimbursed by producers for their costs of collection; they will also save money as transportation and processing costs are assumed by producers.  

By October 2027, the Department of Ecology must complete an assessment and submit findings to the legislature on the opportunities and challenges associated with the end-of-life management of batteries not covered by the legislation, including large-format batteries and those in battery-containing products that are embedded and/or not designed to be easily removed. The assessment must consider which criteria of the legislation should apply to these batteries and battery-containing products. By April 2024, the Department of Ecology must also submit a report to the legislature on policy recommendations for the collection and management of electric vehicle batteries.   

Large format batteries that weigh more than 25 pounds, such as those used in electric vehicles, solar power systems, and data centers, are expected to experience significant market growth in the coming years. If these batteries are not collected and recycled, they will increase in the waste stream. Similarly, battery-embedded products either end up in the waste stream or are sent to battery/electronics recycling centers, where they are expensive to dispose of. Leading EPR battery programs in British Columbia and the European Union have already taken a step toward including a broader product scope that covers larger batteries and battery-embedded products. Some battery producers have global markets and sell into these jurisdictions and will have to meet these requirements there.  

Washington already has significant experience passing and implementing EPR programs for electronics and mercury-containing lamps and has more recently enacted stewardship programs for solar panels, pharmaceuticals, and paint, all of which are based on the fundamental principles of EPR. These laws improve collection convenience, build better supply chains, protect the environment and human health, and create jobs – all while significantly reducing the financial and management burden on local governments. We look forward to similarly positive outcomes from this new battery law! 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

2023 legislative sessions are now underway and many extended producer responsibility (EPR) bills were first out of the gate! There is an unprecedented momentum for these bills. Both Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont and New York Governor Kathy Hochul have indicated their backing, representing an unprecedented level of support for the passage of packaging EPR legislation in these states.  

During legislative session, we monitor activity on bills requiring new EPR programs or amending existing EPR laws in the United States; this information is shared with our Members and Partners through emailed Legislative Updates and is also available to them in our Legislation Library. At press time, these are the bills that had been introduced: 

• Battery EPR in New York and Washington; on January 17th, the District of Columbia enacted their Batteries and Electronics amendment. Our model EPR legislation informed the first EPR law for all single-use household batteries, enacted in Vermont, as well as battery bills introduced in states across the country from 2015 to 2020, and, in 2021, the first battery EPR law for single-use and rechargeable batteries, as well as battery-containing products, which was enacted in Washington, D.C. Learn more about our perspective on battery EPR by clicking here. 
• Household hazardous waste (HHW) EPR in Vermont. Although no HHW EPR program currently exists in the United States, they have operated successfully in Canada since the 1990s: In Manitoba, collection volumes increased four-fold in the first five years of program implementation. PSI’s research fueled the introduction of HHW EPR bills in both Oregon and Vermont. Learn more about our perspective on HHW EPR by clicking here.
• Packaging EPR in Maryland, New York, Washington, and New Jersey (originally introduced in 2022 and still active). In 2016, we developed our model packaging EPR legislation, then updated it in 2019 with input from industry and government. Maine and Oregon used our model to enact packaging EPR laws in 2021, Colorado followed suit in 2022 and, that same year, California also enacted legislation that was informed by our model. Learn more about our perspective on packaging EPR by clicking here.
• Paint EPR in Missouri, which, if passed, would be the state’s first EPR law. Beginning in 2003, PSI convened and facilitated a multi-stakeholder dialogue that included participation and support from the paint industry, state and local governments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and recycled paint manufacturers to develop a consensus model for paint EPR legislation. In 2009, Oregon used our model to enact the country’s first paint EPR law; since then, we have helped pass paint EPR legislation built on the same model. Today, there are paint EPR laws in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Learn more about our perspective on paint EPR by clicking here.
• Mercury-containing lighting EPR in Washington. In 2007, PSI initiated a dialogue on fluorescent lighting that resulted in a national action plan on lamp recycling and contributed to the enactment of EPR laws in five states; we also partnered with rural governments in 13 other states to boost collection of lamps and other mercury-containing products. Learn more about our perspective on lighting EPR by clicking here. 
• Pharmaceuticals law EPR amendment in Oregon. In 2010, PSI led a national coalition to pass the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act and change related regulations that made it possible for retail pharmacies to host drug take-back programs for unwanted medicines, including controlled substances. That year, we developed model pharmaceuticals EPR legislation with our national coalition; by 2012, PSI Member Alameda County had used our model to establish the first pharmaceuticals EPR ordinance in the country, which was upheld by the courts despite industry appeals. Since then, our work has helped pass pharmaceuticals EPR laws in eight states and 23 local jurisdictions. Learn more about our perspective on pharmaceuticals EPR by clicking here. 
• Refrigerant-containing appliances EPR in Washington. In 2014, PSI provided research and policy analysis to New York City, which passed the first-ever law to safely manage refrigerant-containing appliances; since its passage, manufacturers collected more than 90,000 products and saved the city more than $1.3 million. PSI also helped defend New York City’s law against a legal challenge from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, and we contributed to the hydrofluorocarbons emissions reduction law enacted by Washington State in 2021. Learn more about our perspective on refrigerant-containing appliance EPR by clicking here. 
• Solar panel EPR in Minnesota. Washington state passed the first state solar panels EPR law in 2017. In 2021, PSI helped develop the solar panels EPR law enacted by Niagara County, New York – the first such local law in the country. Learn more about our perspective on solar panel EPR by clicking here. 

We also expect to see introductions of additional battery, carpet, electronics, mattress, packaging, paint, and pharmaceuticals EPR bills and amendments in additional states. We appreciate the leadership of legislators and stakeholders who are leading the charge, and look forward to celebrating with our community when these bills become law. 

by Lelande Rehard, MPA
Senior Associate, Policy & Programs

There are electronics EPR laws in 23 states and the District of Columbia, but some are out of date and PSI is working to update these laws in many states. This month, legislative and regulatory changes to New York’s program will go into effect – the culmination of a decade’s worth of work and well worth it, as they set an example for other states. 

By Scott Cassel, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Product Stewardship Institute

Best Buy’s recent announcement that it will start charging $25 to recycle each TV and computer monitor indicates that the already stressed U.S. electronics collection infrastructure has gotten worse.

We can hardly blame Best Buy or any other collector that stepped up to make recycling easier for consumers. Back in 2004, when not a single retailer was collecting electronics equipment, the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) teamed with Staples and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to start the first computer take-back program in the country. Five years later, motivated by state extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, Best Buy took Staples’ computer-only program a big step further to collect both computers and TVs, becoming one of the most convenient locations for consumers to return their used electronic equipment nationwide.

But times have changed. Costs increased, electronics recycling programs became more robust, and vast quantities of higher cost e-scrap are now being collected – changes that have revealed a lack of commitment from most electronics manufacturers to assume responsibility for collecting and recycling used electronics.

With its recent announcement, Best Buy stated that it “should not be the sole e-cycling provider in any given area, nor should we assume the entire cost.” To be sure, some manufacturers did voluntarily step up to fill the infrastructure void over the past decade. In 2004, Dell, in partnership with Goodwill, and HP announced free nationwide electronics take-back programs. Samsung and LG followed suit in 2008. Unfortunately, these programs were limited, leaving Best Buy’s program to cover the brunt of the cost.

Isn’t it ironic? For the past 15 years, collectively, we successfully educated our citizens about the dangers of mismanaging electronics – about youth using acids to burn off toxic metals in countries without adequate environmental and health protection; about the millions of tons of resources that are buried or burned when not recycled, and which must be mined again, creating double the environmental impact; about the lost recycling jobs that are desperately needed by working families; and about the hundreds of millions of dollars that taxpayers and governments must pay to manage the waste from a multi-billion dollar industry.

We all thought we were on the right track, with EPR laws passed in half the U.S. states, some passed with manufacturer support. Resources were conserved, jobs created, and money saved. The public truly caught on – and genuinely appreciated our programs.

But those darn markets had to spoil everything. Well-meaning citizens who today know to “do the right thing” are now effectively being told by manufacturers that they don’t really want them to recycle so much after all. The message the manufacturers convey is that recycling is good, but it should slow down. Or someone else needs to pay for it.

Recyclers, local governments, and a few retailers are doing their part to collect and divert massive quantities of valuable commodities from disposal. But many manufacturers are no longer willing to cover the costs associated with the proper management of their products at end of life. Recyclers must choose between losing money indefinitely, significantly cutting costs, or going out of business. Local governments, whose residents rely on them for trash and recycling services, are now faced with increased electronics recycling costs – costs they didn’t budget for.  Before, government officials directed residents to Best Buy as a convenient alternative to recycle electronics. What will they tell their residents now?

Best Buy stands out for its importance in the electronics collection infrastructure in the US. They collect more than any other manufacturer-sponsored program, providing a convenience to consumers unsurpassed by other locations. Even in states with EPR laws, which were intended to hold all brand owners responsible for recycling the electronics they produce, Best Buy has borne more than its fair share of recycling costs, consistently collecting far more material than was required. For example, in 2014, Best Buy recycled more than three times the amount of e-scrap it was obligated to collect in Illinois; more than 4 times its obligation in Wisconsin; and in Minnesota, company officials report that they collect one-quarter to one-third of all electronics recycled in the state – well beyond its market share.

One thing is clear – it’s time to revisit the nation’s 25 state e-scrap laws to ensure that all manufacturers are equally responsible for electronics recycling. PSI and our state and local government members understand the complexities and variations in programs nationally, and are working to find fair solutions for all. Since the first electronics recycling law passed in 2004, the dialogue has drifted away from manufacturers taking full responsibility and internalizing the costs of end-of-life materials management. Instead, arguments revolve around how high targets should be, how much manufacturers should pay, and what products they should cover. Past voluntary and legislatively supported commitments made by manufacturers have eroded. They resist attempts to incorporate recycling costs into product price, and instead want to pass these costs on to someone else.

Best Buy’s original program is what we need more of in the US – national, no cost, hassle-free product take-back. Their industry colleagues need to match that commitment; Best Buy can no longer be expected to go it alone.

To PSI, Best Buy’s move represents a call to action. Let’s work to improve these programs so they support responsible actors like Best Buy, raise expectations of other manufacturers, and meet increasing demand for consumer electronics recycling.

Learn more about PSI’s electronics work by visiting our website. Please feel free to contact Waneta Trabert, PSI’s electronics lead, with comments and questions (617-236-4866). 

By Scott Cassel, Chief Executive Officer & Founder, Product Stewardship Institute

Several weeks ago, I ventured out to Indianapolis for the Indiana Recycling Coalition Conference to give a presentation on product stewardship and extended producer responsibility. I then headed over to another area of the conference center to participate in a panel as part of Indiana’s first E-cycle stakeholder meeting. In a room filled with dedicated solid waste managers, recyclers, environmentalists, and government officials, we took a look at Indiana’s current e-scrap recycling law to identify successes, challenges, and potential solutions.

Scott Cassel, Thom Davis, Katie Riley, and two representatives from Solid Waste Management Districts discuss the Indiana e-scrap recycling law. Photo courtesy of Denise Szocka.

Indiana’s electronics recycling law is an EPR law based on a “performance goal” system, meaning that manufacturers must collect a specific tonnage of e-scrap per year (i.e., their goal). In Indiana, manufacturers are responsible for collecting and recycling 60% of the total weight of video display devices that they sell. However, since the formula is based on sales of newer, light-weight electronics, and old bulky TVs are the heaviest and most common item collected, manufacturers reach their performance goals very quickly.

This has become a problem. When manufacturers have collected enough to meet their goal, they cut off payment to recyclers. Recyclers then stop accepting material from collection sites, or charge these sites a fee to take the material.

Four workshop attendees work together to identify problems and solutions.
Photo courtesy of Denise Szocka.

Once the basic problems were understood by the participants at the Indiana e-scrap workshop, they explored possible solutions. The conversation in that room was eerily similar to the stakeholder meetings held in New York and Illinois. Now that we have worked so hard at educating residents about the need to recycle electronics, we certainly don’t want to tell them that we can’t take what they bring us.

In the Indiana workshop, one of the potential solutions – raising performance goals – was suggested. In fact, both Illinois and Minnesota have passed updates to their laws just this year (which go into effect July 1, 2015), setting the performance goal at a specific fixed tonnage rather than at a percentage of yearly sales.

For a long-term, stable solution, however, changes should be made to the program structure. E-scrap programs with the highest collection rates – such as programs in Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and Maine – require manufacturers to meet convenience-based standards to ensure that a majority of residents have easy access to a collection site.

The panel and workgroup discussions at the Indiana e-scrap workshop were a great start to improving Indiana’s e-scrap law. These fixes won’t be easy to apply, and each state is having their own state-based discussions. At the same time, the Product Stewardship Institute is holding our own conversations with e-scrap program managers around the country to better understand the common issues they face so that we can help to instill greater stability in existing programs, and offer states with no e-scrap laws a roadmap for the future. Working together, we can come up with viable solutions that we hope will be implemented in years to come.

To read more about the different types of e-scrap programs and their results, check out the recent article in E-Scrap News, “Struggling State-by-State,” by PSI’s Resa Dimino.

By Resa Dimino, Senior Advisor for Policy and Programs at the Product Stewardship Institute

In the first decade of this century, electronics recycling was a hot topic in the waste and recycling world. It was dubbed the fastest growing portion of the waste stream by US EPA, and its toxicity brought concerns from advocates for environmental health, among others. Horrifying videos surfaced about the conditions under which electronics were recycled in other countries, and news reports exposed the fact that materials generated in the US were getting recycled in difficult conditions, causing harm to workers and the environment in developing countries.

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy was offered as a policy solution to address all of these concerns. Assigning responsibility for recycling to the manufacturers of electronics would ensure that an infrastructure developed to handle this growing, and toxic, waste stream. It would also provide accountability for the way materials are handled – what IT or TV company wants to see its brand name featured in the next e-waste export expose? So, between 2003 and 2010, twenty-five states passed laws requiring e-scrap recycling, with twenty-three of those being EPR laws.

No two e-scrap EPR laws are exactly the same, but they do fall into a few categories. The first program, established in Maine, relies on local governments to collect electronics, and requires manufacturers to pay for any of their branded equipment that comes back through the system. Connecticut followed suit with a similar model years later. Oregon, Washington and Vermont offered variations on that theme by creating statewide programs (that typically operate through a contract with the state) that arrange for the recycling of all of the materials collected through what the state determines is a convenient collection system.

Meanwhile, a number of other states—led by Minnesota, but including Illinois, Indiana, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Rhode Island – followed the “set the goal and let industry figure out how to get there” model of EPR. They each established performance goals and allocated responsibility to manufacturers to collect enough e-scrap to meet those goals. The trouble is, it’s hard to figure out where to set those goals to drive aggressive programs. On top of this, the costs of recycling have increased, so manufacturers are not enthusiastic about paying for more than they need to.

In an article recently published in E-Scrap News, PSI lays out the challenges some states are facing with e-scrap laws. As we address these challenges, we learn more about how to implement EPR in the US. We learn about critical issues, including: how much government involvement do we need to ensure a functional system? What policy mechanisms are needed to support an effective market-based recycling system? How should costs be allocated? What is the right balance between regulation and program flexibility?

The answers to these questions vary from state to state, but it is clear that the lessons we are learning now will serve us well as we seek to fix the struggling programs, and design new ones in the future.

Resa Dimino is a Senior Advisor for Policy and Programs at PSI. She works as a consultant with more than 20 years of experience in recycling policy, programs and business development. Prior to launching her consulting practice, Resa was the Director of Legislative Programs at WeRecycle!, an E-Stewards certified electronics recycler headquartered in Mt. Vernon, NY, and worked to develop collection networks in Northeast states that have electronics EPR legislation. For additional information, Resa can be reached at resa@productstewardship.us. 

Resa will be speaking about EPR and electronics on a panel at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) Convention on Friday, April 24, 2015. She will be presenting in the session titled, “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – Where is it going?”. 

For the 11th year in a row, Massachusetts has failed to pass electronics EPR legislation. It is now 12 years since the Commonwealth became the first state in the country to ban the disposal of lead-bearing cathode ray tubes, sparking the electronics recycling industry in the U.S…and placing the financial burden to manage electronics on Massachusetts cities and towns. It was the classic ban without a plan. Unlike the stellar U.S. women gymnasts who earned Gold in London yesterday, our country fails miserably at passing legislation that will keep gold and other valuable materials out of our country’s landfills and incinerators.

What a waste. What a shame. To watch our great and mighty companies offshore jobs, complain about it being the only choice they have, but do little to create thousands of green jobs that are there for the asking if they would engage with PSI and other stakeholders to develop extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws and other strategies that meet their own interests.

The powerful corporate self interest that has blocked movement on product stewardship and EPR in the U.S. is the same one that unknowingly is weakening itself, just as the U.S. auto industry’s fight against fuel efficiency standards weakened itself, causing the need for a government bail-out.

I just finished yet another book that chronicles ways that U.S. companies and policy makers are failing to take actions that will strengthen our economy, instead resulting in the slow decline of U.S. economic power. Edward Luce’s Time to Start Thinking shows what the product stewardship movement experiences on a smaller scale – a failure to launch.  Look no further than the microcosm of the product stewardship field, where many unenlightened companies fight against policies that will save billions of dollars for U.S. taxpayers, reduce waste, and generate thousands of recycling jobs.

These companies operate under the guise of groups like the Product Management Alliance, which evaluates EPR laws by showing that the laws that they weaken actually don’t perform well. How enlightening! The powerful corporate self interest that has blocked movement on product stewardship and EPR in the U.S. is the same one that unknowingly is weakening itself, just as the U.S. auto industry’s fight against fuel efficiency standards weakened itself, causing the need for a government bail-out.

As I wake up this morning to yet another failed attempt to pass an e-waste bill in the all-Democratic Massachusetts Legislature (and with its Democratic Governor), I wonder what this failure is all about…was Dell so bent on passing a bill that ensured that any goals included would already be met before the law went into effect? Or was the House leadership frozen in political gridlock on matters far removed from the bill itself? It is clear that there was no consensus on the bill, but how can stakeholders be so far apart for so long that we cannot figure out a way to act in all of our own self interest?

Close your eyes…and envision a time when we in the U.S. really went for the gold…like those women Olympic gymnastic heroes of today. Rather than burying our gold in the ground and mining raw materials in an endless cycle of waste, we owe it to ourselves to find a way to break out of this malaise together.

by Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder of PSI

Protecting vulnerable populations from environmental, health, and safety risks is a critical goal shared by many in the electronics recycling industry.  It is a cornerstone of the R2 Practices, one of the new certification standards for the electronics recycling industry.

Some have asked why, then, doesn’t R2 establish outright bans on exports of electronic scrap to developing countries and on the use of prison labor?

The answer has to do with economic opportunity.  The stakeholders that developed R2 designed a set of requirements that call for equal environmental, health and safety protections no matter the location or situation.  Importantly, the R2 requirements do so in a manner that does not curb the business opportunities of law-abiding, state-of-the-art companies and their workers in developing countries.  And, with respect to prison labor, they do so in a manner that does not diminish the vocational training opportunities of people that are incarcerated.

The R2 Practices

During the multi-stakeholder development of The Responsible Recycling “R2” Practices for use in Accredited Certification Programs for Electronics Recyclers, aka the “R2 Practices”, stakeholders addressed critically important issues relating to the environmental, health, safety (EHS), and security performance of electronics recyclers and their downstream vendors.  The comprehensive standard contains provisions for best practices in a number of operational areas including:  an EHS management system, downstream due diligence, adherence to legal requirements including those covering exports, and reuse and refurbishing activities.

The resulting document—the R2 Practices—serves as the basis for the R2 Certification Program.  Electronics recyclers can contract with one of a handful of registrars (certification bodies or CBs) to become certified to R2.  This rigorous, two-phase audit process requires the recycler to exhibit conformity to each of the R2 Practices’ many performance and management system requirements.

R2 and Exports of End-of-Life Electronics Equipment to Developing Countries

Developing countries can be home to both atrocious, and “state-of-the-art”, electronics recycling and refurbishing operations.  In these countries, as well as internationally, there is a desire to shift electronics recycling and refurbishing away from the former and into the latter types of operations.  This accomplishes environmental, health and safety goals while also promoting good jobs in some of the areas of the world most in need of economic opportunity.

To ensure exported electronic scrap ends up at state-of-the-art facilities, three key criteria need to be met.  First, shipments of exported electronic scrap must be sent and received in accordance with the laws of the exporting and importing countries.  Illegal shipments all too often end up causing serious harm to health and the environment in the worst of recycling and refurbishing operations.

Second, all receiving facilities must be evaluated on a regular basis to ensure that they are employing best technologies and practices. In Asia and other parts of the world, there are a number of state-of-the-art electronics recycling and refurbishing facilities that rival those in the U.S. in terms of technology and materials management.

Third, all equipment must be accurately characterized on the shipping manifest.  Too often, e-scrap exports are characterized as “reusable” to avoid the added scrutiny and legal requirements that apply to “waste”.  This creates a loophole which can allow scrap to be inappropriately sent to a facility that is not capable of safely handling it.

R2 effectively addresses each of these criteria.  It prohibits the shipment of end-of-life electronic equipment containing toxic materials to developing countries unless the shipment is legal under the laws of both the exporting and importing countries. It requires that the receiving facility conforms to key R2 requirements and employs technologies appropriate for the materials it processes.  Furthermore, “reusable” electronics equipment containing toxic materials is subject to these same requirements unless it has been tested and its key functions are working properly.  Finally, all shipments must be accurately labeled.

Through these requirements, the stakeholders that developed R2 achieve the goal of protecting vulnerable populations while supporting legal, safe, environmentally-sustainable, economic development in developing countries.

R2 and Prison Labor

UNICOR (also known as Federal Prison Industries) maintains operations in a number of manufacturing industries, including:  textiles, office furniture, industrial products, commercial fleet asset services (commercial vehicle remanufacturing), electronics manufacturing and electronics recycling.  The company was established by Congress “to create a voluntary real-world work program to train federal inmates” – thereby helping them obtain employment upon release from prison.  To this end, the UNICOR electronics recycling program has been successful, as electronics recycling firms have experience hiring formerly incarcerated people from the UNICOR program.

A few years ago, some prisoners at UNICOR worked in unsafe settings in electronics recycling facilities.  Unfortunately, employees of less sophisticated recycling operations in the private sector have, and may continue to be,  exposed to similar dangers.  More recently, in December, 2009, The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health issued a report that found no health problems linked to electronics recycling operations at the four UNICOR facilities it investigated.

Regarding the issue of prison labor, the stakeholder group that drafted the R2 Practices decided not to develop different requirements for different categories of workers.  Rather, the R2 Practices set forth extensive requirements covering on-site environmental, health, and safety; and they apply to all workers in a facility, be they employees, consultants, volunteers, or prisoners.  As a result, R2 does not prevent prisoners from safely learning new skills that will help them find employment upon their return to society.

The future of R2

R2 offers a practical and equitable approach to addressing the areas of exports and prison labor.  And as the industry continues to evolve, so too will the R2 Practices.  Similar to the spirit of the standards development process, R2 Solutions is inviting stakeholders from all industry sectors, including NGOs, to shape the future of the standard so it can continue to effectively address the needs and concerns of the industry.

by Sarah Westervelt, the e-Waste Project Coordinator at the Basel Action Network (BAN) and the Recycling Coordinator for the Electronics TakeBack Coalition

For years, there has been little more than pilot programs, pledges and a great deal of concern about what electronics recyclers are actually doing with the e-waste they collect.  While federal regulations  exempt much of this waste stream, the relatively new electronics recycling industry has been plagued by unscrupulous companies that profit largely by exporting scrap or untested/non-working equipment to countries that cannot legally trade in hazardous waste with the US, as defined in a United Nations treaty called the Basel Convention.

© Basel Action Network 2008.

As of this year there are not one, but two accredited certification programs for electronics recyclers in the US, both of which are recognized by the US EPA  – the e-Stewards Certification program and the Responsible Recycling (R2) Certification program.   The question is,  what are the differences, and which one of them will best serve your needs?  Having two programs requires some homework on the part of customers or officials.

To get to the bottom of this question, it is important to compare the standards themselves, as well as the rigor of the verification system (i.e. the certification bodies which certify that recyclers conform to a particular standard, and the accreditation bodies that oversee their work.)

Let’s start with comparing the verification systems.  Both R2 and e-Stewards certification programs utilize the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board as their accreditation body.  ANAB is one of the top three accreditation bodies in the world, and is the largest, most respected in the United States.

Next, let’s look at the certification bodies (CBs) that are accredited by ANAB to certify to either R2 or the e-Stewards Standard.   Each of the programs has three certification bodies that are accredited to certify to their respective standards.  An important question is how rigorous and consistent the auditor training is for each program, with the goal of having a high level of confidence that the auditors across all the CBs consistently understand the standard they are auditing to and program requirements.   Without an owner for the standard or host organization until this fall, the R2 program has not had a sole auditor training program since its inception, resulting in a variety of auditor trainings for the different CBs.  The e-Stewards program requires that all auditors must successfully complete a 3-day training provided by SAI Global, one of the top professional training organizations.

Finally, and central to every certification program, are the standards that define requirements for the companies attaining certification.  The R2 Practice document, which was finalized without support from the environmental community, is 13 pages long, with no guidance document, but it comes with an audit checklist.  The e-Stewards Standard, created by the Basel Action Network in conjunction with leaders in the recycling and refurbishment industries, and supported by 70 organizations, is 49 pages long.  It has a 67 page companion guidance document, but no auditor check list.  Based on the shear length of the two standards, it is easy to understand that one spells out much more comprehensive requirements for the recyclers.

There are two basic types of requirements in each of the standards.  One set of requirements is for the environmental management system (EMS), which involves a Plan-Do-Check-Act system for identifying, documenting, and reducing the environmental impacts of the business operations.   The R2 Practices has one page of general requirements that an R2 recycler’s EMS must meet .  The e-Stewards Standard has the 8-page global standard for environmental management systems, called ISO 14001, imbedded in it, so that all certified e-Stewards are also certified to ISO 14001.

Within this framework of an EMS, both standards require some minimum performance requirements, which are the second basic type of requirements in these two standards.   Performance requirements are industry-specific restrictions of or prescriptions for certain activities.   Along with the EMS requirements, this is where the two standards differ dramatically.

The chart below summaries some of these differences:

While having two certification programs requires some due diligence, most people welcome the arrival of new mechanisms for holding an industry accountable for managing a toxic waste stream.

Check out the companion post to this blog piece by John Lingelbach of R2 Solutions.

© Basel Action Network 2008.