EPA Reports Toxic Releases Down 12% In 2009

Dec 16: U.S. EPA announced the earliest release ever of its annual national analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), providing the public with vital information about their communities. The TRI program publishes information on toxic chemical disposals and releases into the air, land and water, as well as information on waste management and pollution prevention activities in neighborhoods across the country. In 2009, 3.37 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the environment, a 12 percent decrease from 2008. The analysis, which includes data on approximately 650 chemicals from more than 20,000 facilities, found that total releases to air decreased 20 percent since 2008, while releases to surface water decreased 18 percent. Releases to land decreased 4 percent since 2008.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "The Toxics Release Inventory is an important way to inform American communities about their local environmental conditions. It plays a critical role in EPA's efforts to hold polluters accountable and to acknowledge good corporate neighbors who put pollution prevention efforts in place. We will continue to make every effort to put accessible, meaningful information in the hands of the American people. Widespread public access to environmental information is fundamental to the work EPA does every day." This year, EPA is offering additional information to make the TRI data more meaningful and accessible to all communities. The TRI analysis now highlights toxic disposals and releases to large aquatic ecosystems, selected urban communities, and tribal lands. In addition, portions of the analysis are available in Spanish for the first time.

    The analysis shows decreases in the releases of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals including lead, dioxin, and mercury. Total disposal or other releases of mercury decreased 3 percent since 2008, while total disposal or other releases of both dioxin and lead decreased by 18 percent. The analysis also shows a 7 percent decrease in the number of facilities reporting to TRI from the previous year, continuing a trend from the past few years. EPA noted that some of the decline may be attributed to the economic downturn; however, the Agency plans to investigate why some facilities reported in 2008 but not 2009.

    EPA added 16 chemicals to the TRI list of reportable chemicals in November. These chemicals are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens, and represent the largest chemical expansion of the program in a decade. Data on the new TRI chemicals will be reported by facilities on July 1, 2012. Facilities must report their chemical disposals and releases by July 1 of each year. This year, EPA made the 2009 preliminary TRI dataset available in July, the same month as the data were collected. 

    TRI was established in 1986 by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and later modified by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Together, these laws require facilities in certain industries to report annually on releases, disposal and other waste management activities related to these chemicals. TRI data are submitted annually to EPA and states by multiple industry sectors including manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste facilities.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 2009 TRI release information with extensive data management tools to view information by chemical, industry, state, county, region and more (click here). Access the TRI website (click here).

President Proclamation & New Task Force On Electronic Waste

Nov 16: U.S. EPA announced that yesterday, on America Recycles Day, President Obama signed a proclamation celebrating the strides the country has made in recycling generally, while also highlighting the need for greater attention to addressing electronic waste (e-waste). Last week, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), EPA, and the General Services Administration (GSA) formed a task force, under the Executive Order on Federal Sustainability, charged with helping the Federal government lead by example in responsibly managing used electronics.

    In a release EPA said electronic waste from old cell phones, computers and other devices often contains toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Most of this waste is landfilled, which creates potential health and environmental hazards throughout the U.S., and a "significant part of the rest is shipped to developing countries that lack the capacity to manage these wastes safely, threatening the health and environment of those communities." Reusing and recycling e-waste reduces the risks from these hazards and also provides opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint and conserve valuable natural resources.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "Used electronics represent the fastest growing segment of local solid waste in our country. Far too many used electronics end up in landfills or are exported to nations where there is little capacity for safe management. Rather than benefitting from the reuse and recycling of valuable components, we see increased exposure to the toxic chemicals and other harmful substances in electronic devices. EPA has made the handling of used electronics and e-waste one of our top priorities, and through this task force the U.S. can become the world leader in sustainable electronics management. There are cost-effective and potentially profitable methods to better manage these materials and prevent health and environmental threats at home and around the world."

    Nancy Sutley, Chair of CEQ said, "The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that its own waste is properly managed and recycled. Identifying opportunities to reuse the valuable resources contained in most disposed electronic devices is an important part of our obligation to protect human health and the environment." GSA Administrator Martha Johnson said, "Already one of the largest consumers of electronics, we plan to make the federal government the most responsible. Not only will we reduce the federal government's footprint, we will model behavior for private consumers and use our position in the marketplace to drive the development of sustainable electronics and recycling solutions."

    According to the release, the interagency task force, co-chaired by EPA, GSA, and CEQ, will develop a national strategy for responsible electronics stewardship, including improvements to Federal procedures for managing electronic products. The strategy will also "include steps to ensure electronics containing hazardous materials collected for recycling and disposal are not exported to developing nations that lack the capacity to manage the recovery and disposal of these products in ways that safeguard human health and the environment."

    On October 11, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson visited the town of Guiyu in Guandong Province, China. Guiyu is noteworthy for its large electronic waste recycling industry. Jackson saw firsthand some of the approaches being used to recycle and reuse discarded electronics and appliances and discussed remaining challenges and opportunities for collaboration.

    EPA said reusing or recycling electronics helps the environment by reducing our carbon footprint and conserving resources. Electronic equipment contains valuable materials, such as precious metals and rare earth minerals, which can be recycled. Recycling these components conserves materials, prevents air and water pollution, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions that occur during extraction, manufacturing and processing. For example, for every 1 million cell phones recycled, 75 pounds of gold, 772 pounds of silver, 33 pounds of palladium, and more than 35,000 pounds of copper can be recovered.

    EPA indicated that electronics and other products are usually created from raw materials that are extracted from the Earth, transported and processed, distributed, consumed, reused or recycled, and ultimately disposed. Each of these stages creates impacts on the environment, which are unsustainable with limited natural resources. By making smarter choices, consuming less, and reusing and recycling, everyone can contribute to a healthier and more sustainable environment. Also, by promoting responsible electronics stewardship, green jobs can be created and a vibrant American reuse, recycling and refurbishing industry can be built.

 

    Specifically, the Proclamation states in part, "While we can celebrate the breadth of our successes on America Recycles Day, we must also recommit to building upon this progress and to drawing attention to further developments, including the recycling of electronic products. . . To address the problems caused by electronic waste, American businesses, government, and individuals must work together to manage these electronics throughout the product lifecycle -- from design and manufacturing through their use and eventual recycling, recovery, and disposal. To ensure the Federal Government leads as a responsible consumer, my

Administration has established an interagency task force to prepare a national strategy for responsible electronics stewardship, including improvements to Federal procedures for managing electronic products. This strategy must also include steps to ensure electronics containing hazardous materials collected for recycling and disposal are not exported to developing nations that lack the capacity to manage the recovery and disposal of these products in ways that safeguard human health and the environment. . ."

 

    According to a CEQ letter on the newly established Task Force, "CEQ will coordinate the initial convening of the Task Force and provide any necessary policy direction to guide the process. Within 180 days from the date of this memorandum [November 8, 2010], the Task Force shall deliver to CEQ a national framework that includes:

• An action plan directing Federal agencies to exercise all appropriate authorities to achieve the electronic stewardship goals, consistent with domestic and international law;
• Recommendations for a system-based approach to the long-term design, management and disposal of Federal used electronics;
• Recommendations for information gathering and tracking, regulatory options, and best management practices for used electronics that can be used by the Federal agencies and leveraged to the private sector;
• A plan to build partnerships in the public and private sector for sustainable electronics management nationwide; and,
• A plan to reduce exports of used electronics to developing countries that lack capacity to properly manage them, and assess how Federal agencies can improve their ability to deter these exports. The plan will include a strategy to build capacity within and share best practices with developing countries, so they can improve their ability to safely handle used electronics, while promoting economic development.

    Interestingly, neither the EPA release, nor the Proclamation mention the fact that as recently as this fall two major competing electronic waste recycling programs, operated by Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (R2) and the Basal Action Network (e-Stewards), have announced major developments in their programs designed to prove their validity, independence and authentication [See WIMS 9/28/10]. The two programs have now created a confusing system for the public and private sectors to participate in responsible electronics recycling. While EPA Administrator Jackson has said that the issue of proper management of E-waste is a major international priority of the U.S. and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, EPA has done little to provide clarity to the two competing and confusing programs. In general, EPA has said it supports both programs, however, the competing programs have different operating practices, conflicting vendor auditing and certifications and different requirements on exporting and processing waste to and by foreign countries or facilities.

 

    On its website, EPA states that, "Recently, steps were taken to significantly increase safe reuse and recycling of electronics equipment. Electronics recyclers now have the ability to become certified to responsible recycling standards by demonstrating to an accredited, independent third party that they can, and do, meet available standards. EPA encourages all electronics recyclers to become certified to these new recycling standards and that customers who use electronics recyclers choose recyclers that are certified. EPA supports and will continue to push for further safe and protective recycling efforts and encourage improvements in best management practices for recyclers. There are existing recycling certification programs, such as R2 and e-Stewards, that EPA believes advance environmentally safe practices and include standards for use in third party certification of such efforts."

 

    The EPA release and Proclamation also did not mention the massive October 21 report from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) entitled, A Review of Federal Prison Industries' Electronic-Waste Recycling Program. The main 433-page report and 1008-page Appendix found that staff and inmates at several Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, have been exposed to toxic metals including cadmium and lead in the electronic waste recycling program run by the Federal Prison Industries -- also known as UNICOR [See WIMS 10/28/10]. OIG said, "Our investigation found that prior to 2009 UNICOR's management of the e-waste recycling program resulted in numerous violations of health, safety, and environmental laws, regulations, and BOP policies. We concluded that UNICOR's Headquarters staff poorly managed UNICOR's e-waste program prior to 2009."

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the Proclamation (click here). Access more information on the Interagency Task Force on E-waste Management (click here). Access further information from the EPA eCycling website (click here). Access further background information from previous WIMS postings on electronic waste (click here).  Access the ISRI Certified Electronics Recycler® Program (click here). Access the BAN Certified e-Stewards® Initiative (click here). Access the BAN e-Stewards standard (click here). Access the ISRI R2 Practices (click here).

Agencies Say Gulf Seafood Coming To Market Is Safe

Oct 29: Building upon the extensive testing and protocols already in use by federal, state and local officials for the fishing waters of the Gulf, NOAA and FDA have developed and are using a chemical test to detect dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon-BP oil spill in fish, oysters, crab and shrimp. Trace amounts of the chemicals used in dispersants are common, and levels for safety have been previously set. The agencies said using this new test in the Gulf scientists have tested 1,735 tissue samples including more than half of those collected to reopen Gulf of Mexico federal waters. Only a few showed trace amounts of dispersants residue (13 of the 1,735) and they were well below the safety threshold of 100 parts per million for finfish and 500 parts per million for shrimp, crabs and oysters. As such, they do not pose a threat to human health.

    According to a release, experts trained in a rigorous sensory analysis process have been testing Gulf seafood for the presence of contaminants, and every seafood sample from reopened waters has passed sensory testing for contamination with oil and dispersant. Nonetheless, to ensure consumers have total confidence in the safety of seafood being harvested from the Gulf, NOAA and FDA have added this second test for dispersant when considering reopening Gulf waters to fishing. The new test detects dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, known as DOSS, a major component of the dispersants used in the Gulf. DOSS is also approved by FDA for use in various household products and over-the-counter medication at very low levels. The best scientific data to date indicates that DOSS does not build up in fish tissues.

    Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary for commerce and NOAA administrator said,  "The rigorous testing we have done from the very beginning gives us confidence in the safety of seafood being brought to market from the Gulf. This test adds another layer of information, reinforcing our findings to date that seafood from the Gulf remains safe." Margaret Hamburg, Ph.D., FDA commissioner said, "This new test should help strengthen consumer confidence in Gulf seafood. The overwhelming majority of the seafood tested shows no detectable residue, and not one of the samples shows a residue level that would be harmful for humans. There is no question Gulf seafood coming to market is safe from oil or dispersant residue."

    The 1,735 samples tested so far were collected from June to September and cover a wide area of the Gulf. The samples come from open areas in state and Federal waters, and from fishermen who brought fish to the docks at the request of federal seafood analysts. The samples come from a range of species, including grouper, tuna, wahoo, swordfish, gray snapper, butterfish, red drum, croaker, and shrimp, crabs and oysters. Nearly 9,444 square miles, or about 4 percent of the federal waters in the Gulf are still closed to commercial and recreational fishing.

    Previous research provided information about how finfish metabolize DOSS, and at FDA's Dauphin Island, Alabama lab, scientists undertook further exposure experiments on fish, oysters and crab; similar experiments on shrimp were held at NOAA's Galveston, Texas lab. These exposure studies further support that fish, crustaceans and shellfish quickly clear dispersant from their tissues, and provided samples with known concentrations for use as standards for validating the methodology. Samples undergoing chemical analysis are always accompanied by standards with known concentrations of DOSS, to verify the equipment continues to measure the compound accurately.

    Access a release from the agencies (click here).

Prison Industries E-waste Recycling Program Gets Failing Grade

Oct 27: The Council of Prison Locals (CPL) of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) responded to a massive October 21 report from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) entitled, A Review of Federal Prison Industries' Electronic-Waste Recycling Program. The main report is 433-pages and includes a 1008-page Appendix. The OIG report found that staff and inmates at several Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, have been exposed to toxic metals including cadmium and lead. The exposure occurred in the electronic waste recycling program run by the Federal Prison Industries -- also known as UNICOR, a government corporation within (BOP). The report concluded that the UNICOR recycling program did not value worker safety and environmental protection.

 

    As of June 2010, UNICOR had 103 factories at 73 prison locations, employing approximately 17,000 inmates or 11 percent of the inmate population. The factories produce a variety of consumer products and services, office furniture and clothing, and industrial products, such as security fencing and vehicle tags. Starting in 1997, UNICOR began to accept computers, monitors, printers, and other types of e-waste for recycling at Federal prisons. UNICOR sold these e-waste items to its customers, sometimes following refurbishment, or disassembled the items into their component parts and sold the parts to recyclers for further processing.

 

    Specifically, the OIG said, "Our investigation found that prior to 2009 UNICOR's management of the e-waste recycling program resulted in numerous violations of health, safety, and environmental laws, regulations, and BOP policies. We concluded that UNICOR's Headquarters staff poorly managed UNICOR's e-waste program prior to 2009.6 UNICOR staff members often failed to perform hazard assessments on new e-waste operations or did so incorrectly, and important health and safety information was not shared with BOP executives and safety staff that could have prevented the violations from occurring. We also found that managers in UNICOR's Recycling Business Group, primarily General Manager Lawrence Novicky and his assistant, Bruce Ginther, concealed warnings about hazards related to toxic metals from UNICOR and BOP staff and from inmates. . . Overall, we found a culture at UNICOR that did not sufficiently value worker safety and environmental protection. We determined that the flawed organization and poor communication between UNICOR and the BOP made compliance difficult to achieve even with the best-intentioned employees. . ."

 

    CPL President Bryan Lowry said, "The inspector general's findings are in line with what we've been saying for years. Our staff members were exposed to dangerous levels of toxic metals, which BOP knew about and allowed to continue. The inspector general must hold BOP and UNICOR managers accountable for their actions and put appropriate safety measures in place to protect our staff." CPL indicated that it has been an advocate of the UNICOR work program, which provides inmates an opportunity to earn money, learn marketable skills, and become productive members of society once their incarceration ends. The program also keeps inmates occupied and out of trouble, which leads to a more safe and secure prison environment.

 

    Several BOP facilities had UNICOR e-waste operations, including the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Elkton, Ohio, where air quality was not monitored and staff and inmates were not provided protective equipment while breaking down computer monitors. AFGE Local 607 Vice President Bill Meek, who represents workers at FCI – Elkton, "The truth about these toxic exposures is finally coming out. Our primary concern has always been the safety of our staff, and we'll continue to fight for that."

 

    OIG summarized its major conclusions and said, "In conclusion, our investigation identified serious deficiencies with UNICOR's e-waste recycling program, especially prior to 2003. In recent years, UNICOR has made substantial progress to improve the safety of its e-waste operations. However, we believe that the success of these efforts in the future could be hindered by lingering, systemic problems such as the lack of technical resources, inadequate oversight, and a Health Services Division at BOP Headquarters that lacks authority to manage the delivery of quality safety services throughout the BOP and UNICOR. We believe our 12 recommendations can help ensure that BOP and UNICOR conduct its operations, including its e-waste recycling program, in compliance with federal regulations and BOP policies, and with the necessary concern for the health and safety of BOP staff and inmates."　　

　Access the OIG report (click here); and Appendix (click here). Access a release from CPL (click here).

Concerns About Formaldehyde & Brazilian Blowout Hair Product

Oct 18: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has updated its product information website regarding "Complaints Associated With the Use of Brazilian Blowout." FDA indicates that it has recently received a number of inquiries from consumers and salon professionals concerning the safety of "Brazilian Blowout" and similar "professional use only" hair care products. FDA says it will continue to monitor this problem and will report on any new developments.

 

    FDA indicates that it has been notified by some state and local organizations of reports from salons about problems associated with the use of Brazilian Blowout, a product used to straighten hair. Complaints include eye irritation, breathing problems, and headaches. State and local organizations with authority over the operation of salons are currently investigating these reports. FDA has recently received some adverse event reports on Brazilian Blowout from salon personnel or consumers. These reports included symptoms similar to those in the reports received by state and local organizations, as well as symptoms such as rashes and fainting.."

 

    FDA said it "is working with state and local organizations, as well as OSHA, to determine whether the products or ingredients would be likely to cause health problems under the intended conditions of use. The composition of the products and the labeling, including use instructions and any warning statements, will be factors in this determination. One safety issue we'll be evaluating is whether formaldehyde may be released into the air after the product is applied to the hair and heated."

 

    The American Chemistry Council's (ACC's) Senior Director, Ann Mason issued a statement saying, "As the manufacturers of formaldehyde, our members take their role as product stewards very seriously. We believe that the producers and users of formaldehyde and other chemicals should follow federal and state regulations, which set limits for the safe and appropriate use of chemicals. Media reports indicate that there are high levels of formaldehyde in the Brazilian Blowout. We encourage the company that makes the Brazilian Blowout to cooperate fully with government officials to ensure that the product meets federal and state standards for formaldehyde use. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), a national scientific organization that is sanctioned by the FDA to review and assess the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics, classifies formaldehyde in beauty products as 'safe' as long as the substance is no greater than 0.2 percent as free formaldehyde, kept to a minimum, and is not aerosolized. CIR's standards should inform any effort to measure the safety of the Brazilian Blowout and related products."

 

    The Brazilian Blowout website indicates it is, "The ONLY Professional Smoothing Treatment that improves the health of the hair. No Damage! and No harsh chemicals! CONTAINS NO FORMALDEHYDE!!" However, NPR reports that the Oregon Health & Science University's Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology tested samples of Brazilian Blowout from a Portland salon and found formaldehyde levels between 8.85 percent and 10.6 percent -- far higher than the 0.2 percent considered safe by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel.

 

    Access the FDA website (click here). Access the ACC release and link to additional information (click here). Access a report and links on the NPR website (click here). Access the Brazilian Blowout website (click here).

ISRI Clarifies R2 Solutions Was Not Created By ISRI

Oct 6: The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) has issued a release saying, "There has been some confusion over what has been reported regarding the new non-profit organization R2 Solutions. This release addresses that the creation of R2 Solutions was not by ISRI. Rather, R2 Solutions is an independent, non-profit organization created by John Lingelbach and managed by a diverse Board of Directors headquartered in Colorado." [See WIMS 9/28/10]. As WIMS has previously reported there are two major competing electronic waste recycling programs, operated by ISRI and the Basal Action Network (BAN), which are causing considerable confusion for the public and private sectors to participate in responsible electronics recycling. Apparently, the new R2 Solutions organization is adding to the confusion.

    Part of the confusion is in the terminology "Responsible Recycling" or R2 and its relationship to U.S. EPA. According to a release from ISRI, The R2 Solutions organization was formed by John Lingelbach, a nationally recognized environmental mediator who "facilitated the original EPA-sponsored two-and-a-half year, multi-stakeholder process that resulted in the development of the R2 practices in 2008." He will also serve as R2 Solution's Acting Executive Director. The voluntary R2 practices include general principles and specific practices for recyclers disassembling or reclaiming used electronics equipment including those electronics that are exported for refurbishment and recycling.

    The BAN Certified e-Stewards® Initiative program prohibits "exporting of hazardous e-waste from developed to developing countries" and the ISRI Responsible Recycling (R2) Certified Electronics Recycler® Program (RIOS) "prohibits e-recyclers and their downstream vendors from exporting these more toxic materials to countries that have enacted laws making their import illegal." As explained by ISRI in its release, "the goals established for R2 Solutions are fourfold: to assure the open, transparent and balanced governance of the R2 practices, with standards development and stakeholder consultations all made available publicly;  to educate the public about responsible electronics recycling;  to promote the use of the R2 practices; and, to explore opportunities for collaboration in furtherance of responsible electronics recycling throughout the world."

    U.S. EPA has posted on its Responsible Recycling Practices website that, "EPA supports and will continue to push for further safe and protective recycling efforts and encourage improvements in best management practices for recyclers. There are existing recycling certification programs, such as R2 and eStewards that EPA believes advance environmentally safe practices and includes standards for use in third party certification of such efforts." Although U.S. EPA has said the issue of proper management of e-waste is a major international priority; and the Agency has recognized both the BAN and ISRI e-waste programs; it has not provided any independent clarity on the accuracy or extent of their responsible recycling claims.

    On September 30, Representative Gene Green (D-TX), with cosponsors Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA) and John Carter (R-TX), introduced H.R. 6252, The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act to provide the United States with the regulatory framework to monitor the export of used electronics. Although e-waste (consumer electronics such as TVs, cell phones and computers) is the fastest growing waste stream in the country, the U.S. EPA currently has no framework to monitor the removal, disposal, and export to developing nations. Over 3 million tons of e-waste was generated by the United States in 2007. Representative Green said, "As technology advances at a rapid pace, explosive sales patterns emerge in consumer consumption and old electronics are discarded as a result. Many of these electronics are sent to developing nations for reuse or recycling." The legislation has received support from Dell, Apple, Samsung, The Electronics TakeBack Coalition, and The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) [See WIMS 10/1/10].

 

    Access the ISRI release on R2 Solutions (click here). Access the R2 Solutions website (click here). Access the ISRI Certified Electronics Recycler® Program (click here). Access the BAN Certified e-Stewards® Initiative (click here). Access the BAN e-Stewards standard (click here). Access the ISRI R2 Practices (click here). Access EPA's Responsible Recycling Practices website (click here). Access EPA's eCycling website for more information (click here). Access a release from Representative Green (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.6252 (click here). Access WIMS/eNewsUSA blog postings on electronic waste (click here).

Confusion Continues In Two Competing Electronics Recycling Programs

Sep 28: Within the last 10-days, the two major competing electronic waste recycling programs, operated by Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Basal Action Network, have announced major developments in their programs designed to prove their validity, independence and authentication [See WIMS 3/10/10 for background]. The two programs have now created a confusing system for the public and private sectors to participate in responsible electronics recycling. While U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said that the issue of proper management of E-waste is a major international priority of the U.S. and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, EPA has done little to provide clarity to the two competing and confusing programs.

 

    On September 28, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc (ISRI) announced the creation of R2 Solutions, a stand-alone, non-profit organization formed to manage and continually develop the Responsible Recycling (R2) Certified Electronics Recycler® Program within the Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS). According to a release, R2 Solutions will oversee the R2 Practices which provides a comprehensive set of standards for electronics recyclers that require responsible management of used computers and consumer electronics. The R2 Practices, were developed under the aegis of an EPA facilitated, multi-stakeholder process that has been accredited by the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board as a third party auditable global standard. 
 
    To date, according to ISRI, there are 21 electronics recycling facilities certified to the R2 Practices -- a set of requirements that establishes a high bar for quality, environmental protection, health & safety, and data security, and that precludes shipping of hazardous materials to countries that have laws prohibiting their import. Robin Wiener, ISRI president said, "ISRI, as one of the original supporters of the R2 Practices, applauds the creation of R2 Solutions as a stand-alone, non-profit organization, whose sole purpose is to manage and sustainably develop the R2 Practices in an open, transparent manner. We firmly believe that a neutral, third-party organization such as R2 Solutions is a more appropriate administrator of the R2 Program going forward, and we [ISRI] look forward to its progress in advancing responsible electronics recycling globally."
 
    The newly created R2 Solutions body will manage continual development of R2 Practices, with standards development and stakeholder consultations on R2 Practices publicly available. A full set of standards is available on the R2 Solutions website (see link below). ISRI indicated that with the creation of R2 Solutions, a governance structure embraced by the EPA, vendors can now have confidence that used electronic equipment is being recycled safely and responsibly by accredited recyclers.
 
    According to ISRI, R2 Solutions will act as the Secretariat for the R2 Standard, and the governing council empanelled by R2 Solutions will operate under a set of bylaws that will require a decision-making forum, including an appeals process, in which all interested stakeholders may participate. The Board of Directors of R2 Solutions includes: John DeVillars, Managing Partner of BlueWave Capital; John Howard, independent public policy consultant former Bush Administration Federal Environmental Executive; John Lingelbach, environmental mediator, Acting Executive Director of R2 Solutions; Pete Regan, former CEO and Chairman of the Board of ERM, Inc.; Lynn Rubinstein, Executive Director of the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC).
 
    The ISRI announcement follows a competing announcement from the other major electronics recycling program operated by the Basal Action Network (BAN) and known as the Certified e-Stewards® Initiative. On September 17, the e-Stewards program announced its worldwide, "third-party audited, accredited international certification program for electronics recyclers that prohibits the export of e-waste to developing countries and enjoys the support of more than 70 environmental organizations." The e-Stewards announced its first Leadership Council which is designed to help guide the early development and promotion of the program "to ensure truly responsible electronics recycling across the globe."

    Jim Puckett, BAN Executive Director said, "We are very fortunate to have this first group of ardent and expert supporters of the e-Stewards Certification volunteer to help advise and shape this program to not only be the most principled electronics recycling certification in existence but the most practical and useful one as well."

    The new e-Stewards Leadership Council consists of representatives of five leading U.S. e-Recyclers: Capstone Wireless (TX), CloudBlue (OH), Electronic Recyclers International (CA), Surplus Exchange (MO) and WeRecycle! (NY). Philips Services Corp., with e-recycling collection facilities across the U.S., will represent e-waste collectors. Samsung and Wells Fargo, both enrolled in the e-Stewards Enterprise program, will represent electronics manufacturers and corporations that generate e-waste. A representative of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and two government representatives will round out the Council, ensuring a diversity of viewpoints but all sharing in the common goal of ending e-waste mismanagement.

    The Leadership Council will provide recommendations to BAN in the areas of technical and business issues, policy expertise, marketing and, as appropriate, promotional efforts and governmental lobbying. All members have demonstrated a depth of knowledge of industry issues and a passion to facilitate the achievement of the e-Stewards mission.

 

    Access a release from ISRI (click here). Access the ISRI Certified Electronics Recycler® Program (click here). Access the R2 Solutions website (click here). Access a release from BAN (click here). Access the Certified e-Stewards® Initiative (click here). Access more information on the e-Stewards Leadership Council (click here). Access EPA's release on priority issues (click here). Access EPA's eCycling website for more information (click here). [*Haz, *P2]

GAO Report Calls For E-Waste Legislation & Improved Partnerships

Aug 11: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling (GAO-10-626,  July 12, 2010). The report was requested by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) the Chair of the House Science & Technology Committee.  

 

    According to GAO, low recycling rates for used televisions, computers, and other electronics result in the loss of valuable resources, and electronic waste exports risk harming human health and the environment in countries that lack safe recycling and disposal capacity. The U.S. EPA regulates the management of used electronics that qualify as hazardous waste and promotes voluntary efforts among electronics manufacturers, recyclers, and other stakeholders. However, in the absence of a comprehensive national approach, a growing number of states have enacted electronics recycling laws, raising concerns about a patchwork of state requirements. In this context, GAO examined (1) EPA's efforts to facilitate environmentally sound used electronics management, (2) the views of various stakeholders on the state-by-state approach, and (3) considerations to further promote environmentally sound management. GAO reviewed EPA documents, interviewed EPA officials, and interviewed stakeholders in five states with electronics recycling legislation.

 

    GAO indicates that it found EPA's efforts to facilitate the environmentally sound management of used electronics consist largely of (1) enforcing its rule for the recycling and exporting of cathode-ray tubes (CRT), which contain significant quantities of lead, and (2) an array of partnership programs that encourage voluntary efforts among manufacturers and other stakeholders. GAO said that EPA has improved enforcement of export provisions of its CRT rule, but issues related to exports remain. In particular, EPA does not specifically regulate the export of many other electronic devices, such as cell phones, which typically are not within the regulatory definition of hazardous waste despite containing some toxic substances. In addition, the impact of EPA's partnership programs is limited or uncertain, and EPA has not systematically analyzed the programs to determine how their impact could be augmented.

 

    The views of stakeholders on the state-by-state approach to managing used electronics have been shaped by the increasing number of states with electronics recycling legislation. To varying degrees, the entities typically regulated under the state laws -- electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers -- consider the increasing number of state laws to be a compliance burden. In contrast, in the five states GAO visited (California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington), state and local solid waste management officials expressed overall support for states taking a lead role in the absence of a national approach. The officials attributed their varying levels of satisfaction more to the design and implementation of individual state recycling programs, rather than to the state-by-state approach.

 

    Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of used electronics involve a number of policy considerations and encompass many variations, which generally range from a continued reliance on state recycling programs to the establishment of Federal standards via legislation. The first approach provides the greatest degree of flexibility to states but does not address stakeholder concerns that the state-by-state approach is a compliance burden or will leave some states without electronics recycling programs. Moreover, EPA does not have a plan for coordinating its efforts with state recycling programs or articulating how EPA's partnership programs can best assist stakeholders to achieve the environmentally sound management of used electronics.

 

    Under the second approach, a primary policy issue is the degree to which federal standards would allow for stricter state standards, thereby providing states with flexibility but also potentially worsening the compliance burden from the standpoint of regulated entities. As a component of any approach, a greater Federal regulatory role over exports could address limitations on the authority of states to regulate exports. GAO previously recommended that EPA submit to Congress a legislative proposal for ratification of the Basel Convention, a multilateral environmental agreement that aims to protect against the adverse effects resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous waste. EPA officials told GAO that the agency had developed a legislative proposal under previous administrations but had not finalized a proposal with other Federal agencies.

 

    GAO recommended that the Administrator, EPA, (1) examine how EPA's partnership programs could be improved to contribute more effectively to used electronics management; and (2) work with other Federal agencies to finalize a legislative proposal on ratification of the Basel Convention for congressional consideration. GAO indicated that EPA agreed with the recommendations.

 

    WIMS has previously reported on the competing electronic waste recycling programs of the Basel Action Network (BAN) and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) [See WIMS 4/16/10]. The GAO report acknowledges these programs and discusses them somewhat; however, it does not seem to reflect the depth of difference between the programs and various interest groups reactions to those differences.

 

    The Basel Action Network (BAN), the group that first documented the dumping of toxic electronic waste in China and Africa, announced the official launch of what it said was "the world's first global e-waste recycler certification" on April 15, 2010. BAN also indicated its program was the first such program backed by environmental organizations and major corporations alike. The accredited, third-party audited certification program has been endorsed by Greenpeace USA, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and 68 other environmental organizations; as well as major corporate "e-Stewards Enterprises" including: Apollo Group, Inc.; Bank of America; Capitol One Financial Corp.; Ind. Distributors of Electronics Assoc.; Nemours Foundation; Premier, Inc.; Premier Farnell; Resource Media; Samsung; Sprout Creation; Stokes Lawrence; and Wells Fargo.

 

        The other major program is operated by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI). On March 25, 2010, ISRI announced that its board had laid out "a roadmap addressing the growing problem of the improper export of end-of-life electronic scrap." The Board voted unanimously to approve what they called "a new, aggressive policy to protect health, the environment and worker safety." They said the action signaled that ISRI members are behind efforts to stem possible health and environmental hazards that occur when e-scrap is not exported responsibly. ISRI said the Board's decision reinforces environmental, health and worker safety standards that closely track the EPA's Responsible Recycling (R2) program [See WIMS 3/25/10].

 

    On March 10, 2010, WIMS reported that a release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored R2 electronic recycling certification program did not mention what some consider to be a more restrictive and competing international certification program from the Basel Action Network (BAN) [See WIMS 3/10/10]. On July 18, 2010, EPA formally recognized the e-Stewards® Recycler Certification and associated e-Stewards® Standard for the Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment.

 

    EPA updated its website to include a new notice on their e-Cycling webpage indicating: "EPA supports and will continue to push for further safe and protective recycling efforts and encourage improvements in best management practices for recyclers. There are existing recycling certification programs, such as R2 and e-Stewards that EPA believes advance environmentally safe practices and includes standards for use in third party certification of such efforts. . . Use of either an R2 certified or e-Stewards certified electronics recycler meets your federal requirements to employ environmentally sound practices with respect to disposition of electronic products.  Use of these certified recyclers requires no further due diligence."

 

    Access the complete 70-page GAO report (click here). Access EPA's Responsible Recycling Practices for Electronics Recyclers website for links to more information (click here). Access the BAN e-Stewards website for complete details on certification and related information (click here). Access ISRI's Electronics Recycling website for additional details (click here).

Basel Action Network Launches Electronics Recycling Program

Apr 15: The Basel Action Network (BAN), the group that first documented the dumping of toxic electronic waste in China and Africa, announced the official launch of the world's first global e-waste recycler certification and the first such program backed by environmental organizations and major corporations alike. The accredited, third-party audited certification program has not only been endorsed by Greenpeace USA, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and 68 other environmental organizations but has also drawn the support of major corporate "e-Stewards Enterprises" including: Apollo Group, Inc.; Bank of America; Capitol One Financial Corp.; Ind. Distributors of Electronics Assoc.; Nemours Foundation; Premier, Inc.; Premier Farnell; Resource Media; Samsung; Sprout Creation; Stokes Lawrence; and Wells Fargo.

 

    The program should not be confused with a competing program from U.S. EPA and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI). On March 25, ISRI announced that its board laid out "a roadmap addressing the growing problem of the improper export of end-of-life electronic scrap." The Board voted unanimously to approve what they called "a new, aggressive policy to protect health, the environment and worker safety" which they signaled that ISRI members are behind efforts to stem possible health and environmental hazards that occur when e-scrap is not exported responsibly. ISRI said the Board's decision reinforces environmental, health and worker safety standards that closely track the EPA's Responsible Recycling (R2) program [See WIMS 3/25/10].

 

    On March 10, 2010, WIMS reported that a release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored R2 electronic recycling certification program did not mention what some consider to be a more restrictive and competing international certification program from the Basel Action Network (BAN) [See WIMS 3/10/10]. The EPA release indicated that through "a brand new electronics recycling certification program," the Agency "is taking steps to ensure that electronics recyclers adhere to highly protective standards for workers and the environment in processing pre-owned electronics. This new certification process also means that recycled materials will not be shipped overseas without the consent of the designated country." EPA Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin said, "This new e-cycling certification program will take the guesswork out of choosing a responsible recycler." However, the two competing programs, that are just now getting underway, are certain to cause confusion for the public, recyclers, and manufacturers.

 

    The "e-Stewards Standard," created by BAN with the advice of industry leaders and health and environmental specialists is the major feature of the program. It calls for recyclers to eliminate exports of hazardous e-wastes to developing countries; to halt the dumping of such wastes in municipal landfills or incinerators, and to cease the use of captive prison populations to manage toxic e-wastes. It also calls for strict protection of customer's private data and occupational health safeguards to ensure that workers in recycling plants are not exposed to toxic dusts and fumes.

 

    As an indication of the conflicts between the BAN program and the EPA R2 program, currently there are about 50 e-Stewards Recyclers, each of which has passed a rigorous internal review by BAN as a preliminary step to full certification. All are regarded as responsible recyclers, and each has committed to becoming fully certified by September 2011. BAN announced the names of its first fully certified companies which have passed additional, independent audits conducted by accredited certifying bodies. The first BAN Certified e-Stewards Recyclers are: Newport Computer Services, Inc. (one US location); Redemtech (all 4 US locations)

WeRecycle! (one US location). However, under the EPA R2 program only three companies nationwide have received its new "Responsible Recycling Practices Certification" designation  and include: E-structors, Inc. of Elkridge, MD; TechTurn of Austin, TX; and Waste Management of Minnesota.

    Additionally the BAN program recognizes three accredited certifying bodies including: AQA International LLC, Orion Registrar Inc., and SAI Global; while under the EPA program recyclers must apply for certification to either SGS or Perry Johnson Registrars.

 

    BAN reports that there are an additional twelve companies that are next in line, having contracted with certifying bodies to begin the process. The next-in-line companies are: A greenSpan Computer Recycling; California Electronic Asset Recovery (CEAR); CloudBlue; Creative Recycling Solutions; eGreen IT Solutions; Glezco (Mexico); Materials Processing Corporation; Metech; Nextend; Regency Technologies; Surplus Exchange; and Universal Recycling Technologies.

 

    Access a release from BAN (click here). Access the e-Stewards website for complete details on certification and related information (click here). Access a March 10 release from EPA with links to related program information (click here). Access ISRI's Electronics Recycling website for additional details (click here).

Senate & House Release TSCA Overhaul Legislation

Apr 15: U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced legislation designed to overhaul the "Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976" (TSCA), which he called "an antiquated law that in its current state, leaves Americans at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals." Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, introduced the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" to protect the health of families and the environment.

    Senator Lautenberg said, "America's system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken. Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children's bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My 'Safe Chemicals Act' will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals. Chemical safety reform is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it is a common-sense issue and I look forward to building bipartisan support for this measure."

    According to a release from Senator Lautenberg, the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" requires safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order stay on the market. Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances. The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

    Over the last several months, Senator Lautenberg has chaired a series of hearings to help craft the "Safe Chemicals Act" with dozens of witnesses including business leaders, public officials, scientists, doctors, academics, and non-profit organizations [See WIMS 3/9/10, WIMS 2/4/10]. . Through the hearings, public health groups, environmentalists, industry representatives and the EPA have expressed support for reforms to our nation's toxic substance laws. The "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" comports with the reform principles laid out by the Obama Administration, the American Chemistry Council and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition.

 

    According to a summary provided by Senator Lautenberg, some highlights of the Safe Chemicals Act are that it:

• Provides EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical's safety. Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, while also preventing duplicative or unnecessary testing. EPA will have full authority to request additional information needed to determine the safety of a chemical.
• Prioritizes chemicals based on risk. Calls on the EPA to categorize chemicals based on risk, and focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm.
• Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market. Places the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals. All uses must be identified and determined safe for the chemical to enter the market or continue to be used.
• Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals. Requires EPA to take fast action to reduce risk from chemicals that have already been proven dangerous. In addition, the EPA Administrator is given authority to act quickly if any chemical poses an imminent hazard.
• Creates open access to reliable chemical information. Establishes a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA's safety determinations. The EPA will impose requirements to ensure the information collected is reliable.
• Promotes innovation and development of green chemistry. Establishes grant programs and research centers to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives, and brings some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

    In addition to the Lautenberg bill, Representatives Bobby Rush, (D-IL) and Henry Waxman, (D-CA), introduced a parallel proposal, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, "discussion draft" of chemical protection reform legislation in the House. Rush and Waxman said their draft legislation reflects reasoned consideration of stakeholder and EPA priorities and recommendations. Representative Rush said, "Through the open stakeholder process that we are commencing today, I am optimistic that the discussion draft of my bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act will lead to a number of constructive improvements." Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Waxman said, "For decades, Congress has been told that the Toxic Substances Control Act is failing its mission and is in desperate need of reform. In order to protect all Americans from toxic exposures and the adverse effects they cause, Congress must strengthen this failing law."

 

    Daniel Rosenberg, Senior Attorney in the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC's) Health and Environment Program said, "Changing the existing law would make a significant difference in peoples' lives by reducing daily exposure to toxic chemicals. These bills provide an excellent starting place to strengthen EPA's authority to protect the public. If this legislation fulfills its promise, we can hope to see a decline in cancer, learning and developmental disabilities, infertility and other disease associated with exposure to these chemicals. Reducing such health problems will improve and lengthen lives as well as reduce the costs of healthcare. Many people assume the protections these bills create already exist, but they don't and they are long overdue. Both bills will need some strengthening to ensure that the promise of meaningful reform is fulfilled and we will work with lawmakers to make that happen."

 

    American Chemistry Council (ACC) president and CEO Cal Dooley issued a statement saying, "Safety must be the primary goal of chemical regulatory reform, as it is the top priority of our industry. This is a complex issue and we compliment Senator Lautenberg, and Congressmen Waxman and Rush, for bringing focus to the need for modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). While TSCA has been protective of public health and the environment in the past, we should harness the scientific and technological advances made since its passage to assess the safety of chemicals while fostering innovation and preserving hundreds of thousands of American jobs. 

    "We are encouraged that the Safe Chemicals Act (SCA) reflects some aspects of the principles that ACC released last year, which are mirrored by EPA's principles. These include the need to prioritize chemicals for evaluation, a risk-based approach to EPA safety reviews, and a reduction in animal testing. However, we are concerned that the bill's proposed decision-making standard may be legally and technically impossible to meet. The proposed changes to the new chemicals program could hamper innovation in new products, processes and technologies. In addition, the bill undermines business certainty by allowing states to adopt their own regulations and create a lack of regulatory uniformity for chemicals and the products that use them."

    The Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a release indicating, "Lautenberg, Waxman and other members of Congress sponsored a toxic chemicals policy reform proposal known as the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act in 2005 and again in 2008, but these measures did not have the broad support that has coalesced behind the current initiative. Today, the search for environmental causes of disease is a front-burner issue for scientists, medical professionals, policy-makers and health advocates. President Obama, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, key members of both houses of Congress, the environmental and health communities, countless citizens and the chemical industry itself agree that a new national policy must be crafted to fit the complex realities of the 21st century."

    Access a release from Senator Lautenberg (click here). Access the full text of the "Safe Chemicals Act (click here). Access a full summary of the bill (click here). Access a release from Waxman-Rush with links to the discussion draft, a section-by-section summary, and a discussion draft summary (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here).

National Academies Report On Genetically Engineered Crops

Apr 13: A report from the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) indicates that many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits -- such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields -- compared with conventional crops. However, GE crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate -- a main component in Roundup and other commercial weed killers -- could develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate. GE crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices.

 

    The report -- Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States -- provides the first comprehensive assessment of how GE crops are affecting all U.S. farmers, including those who grow conventional or organic crops. The new report follows several previous Research Council reports that examined the potential human health and environmental effects of GE crops.

 

    David Ervin, professor of environmental management and economics, Portland State University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm. However, these benefits are not universal for all farmers. And as more GE traits are developed and incorporated into a larger variety of crops, it's increasingly essential that we gain a better understanding of how genetic engineering technology will affect U.S. agriculture and the environment now and in the future. Such gaps in our knowledge are preventing a full assessment of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of GE crops on farm sustainability."

 

    First introduced in 1996, genetically engineered crops now constitute more than 80 percent of soybeans, corn, and cotton grown in the United States. GE soybeans, corn, and cotton are designed to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which has fewer adverse environmental effects compared with most other herbicides used to control weeds. In addition to glyphosate resistance, GE corn and cotton plants also are designed to produce Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium that is deadly when ingested by susceptible insect pests.

 

    The report indicates that farmers need to adopt better management practices to ensure that beneficial environmental effects of GE crops continue. In particular, farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need to incorporate a range of weed management practices, including using other herbicide mixes. To date, at least nine species of weeds in the United States have evolved resistance to glyphosate since GE crops were introduced, largely because of repeated exposure. Federal and state government agencies, technology developers, universities, and other stakeholders should collaborate to document weed resistance problems and develop cost-effective ways to control weeds in current GE crops and new types of GE herbicide-resistant plants now under development.

 

    Under the heading of environmental benefits, the report indicates that improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of GE crops. Insecticide use has declined since GE crops were introduced, and farmers who grow GE crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides that linger in soil and waterways. In addition, farmers who grow herbicide-resistant crops till less often to control weeds and are more likely to practice conservation tillage, which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion.

 

    However, no infrastructure exists to track and analyze the effects that GE crops may have on water quality. The U.S. Geological Survey, along with other Federal and state environmental agencies, should be provided with financial resources to document effects of GE crops on U.S. watersheds. The report notes that although two types of insects have developed resistance to Bt, there have been few economic or agronomic consequences from resistance. Practices to prevent insects from developing resistance should continue, such as an EPA-mandated strategy that requires farmers to plant a certain amount of conventional plants alongside Bt plants in "refuge" areas.

 

    Under economic and social effects, the report indicates that in many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage. Although the farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops. 

 

    The report says that the higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides. The report also says that economic effects of GE crops on farmers who grow organic and conventional crops also need further study. For instance, the Committee indicated that organic farmers are profiting by marketing their crops as free of GE traits, but their crops' value could be jeopardized if genes from GE crops flow to non-GE varieties through cross-pollination or seed mingling.

 

    The report says, Farmers have not been adversely affected by the proprietary terms involved in patent-protected GE seeds.  However, some farmers have expressed concern that consolidation of the U.S. seed market will make it harder to purchase conventional seeds or those that have only specific GE traits. With the exception of the issue of seed industry consolidation, the effects of GE crops on other social factors of farming -- such as labor dynamics, farm structure, or community viability -- have largely been overlooked. More research is needed on the range of effects GE crops have on all farmers, including those who don't grow GE crops or farmers with less access to credit. Studies also should examine impacts on industries that rely on GE products, such as the livestock industry.

 

    The Committee indicates that research institutions should receive government support to develop GE traits that could deliver valuable public benefits but provide little market incentive for the private sector to develop. Examples include plants that decrease the likelihood of off-farm water pollution or plants that are resilient to changing climate conditions. Intellectual property that has been patented in developing major crops should be made available for these purposes whenever possible.

 

    Access a release and links to the Full Report; Powerpoint Presentation; Report in Brief; and Listen to the Briefing (click here).

Scrap Recycling Industries Board Approves E-Waste R2 Program

Mar 25: According to a release from the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) its board laid out a roadmap addressing the growing problem of the improper export of end-of-life electronic scrap. The Board voted unanimously to approve what they called "a new, aggressive policy to protect health, the environment and worker safety" which they signaled that ISRI members are behind efforts to stem possible health and environmental hazards that occur when e-scrap is not exported responsibly. 

 

    ISRI President Robin Wiener said, "The ISRI Board voted today to adopt an aggressive, forward-looking policy that puts forth a safe, responsible and legal framework for electronics recycling both at home and abroad. Among other provisions, the policy bans the export of electronic equipment and components for land-filling or incineration for disposal and requires that facilities outside the U.S. that recycle or refurbish electronics have a documented, verifiable environmental, health and worker safety system in place."  ISRI said the Board's decision reinforces environmental, health and worker safety standards that closely track the EPA's Responsible Recycling (R2) program.

 

    EPA's innovative R2 program was finalized in 2008 to create and adopt safe and effective policies for electronics recycling in the US and abroad. Career professionals at the EPA, several state governments (including Minnesota and Washington), OEMs,   electronic recyclers and trade associations including ISRI and ITIC sat down in 2006 to begin work on these standards. Additionally, the standards were tested in the field to ensure that companies who were awarded the certification had to meet tough benchmarks. The guidelines are used by accrediting organizations like the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) to certify that companies are complying with health, worker safety and environmental laws.

 

    Wiener said, "ISRI has always been a staunch supporter of recycling electronics in compliance with domestic and international legal requirements. This is emphasized in the new policy, which requires that facilities outside the United States that recycle or refurbish electronics have a documented environmental, health and worker safety system that can be verified; requires a business record-keeping system to document compliance with all legal requirements; requires that any facility must be capable of handling hazardous waste; and ensures that US exporters can confirm a facility they export to is in compliance with the law."

 

    ISRI Director of Government and International Affairs Eric Harris noted that the newly adopted policy includes provisions that will address actual problems in recycling facilities throughout the world rather than requiring a total trade ban on the export of electronic scrap as the only viable way to deal with irresponsible recycling outside of the United States. Harris pointed to a newly released study in the March 22, 2010, issue of the journal, Environmental Science and Technology.

 

    In the report, author Eric Williams of Arizona State University writes, "Trade bans will become increasingly irrelevant in solving the problem" and argues that a complete ban on export of used and end-of-life electronics to developing counties fails to solve the problem because the developing world will generate more used and end-of-life electronics than developed countries as early as 2017. Additionally, by 2025, the developing world will generate twice the amount of electronic scrap as what will come from developed nations. Williams is an assistant professor at Arizona State University with a joint appointment in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, a part of the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering and the School of Sustainability.

 

    ISRI's Wiener added, "The policy adopted today by the ISRI Board of Directors embodies the most environmentally sustainable and realistic approach to electronic scrap recycling. This is a responsible, safe and legal approach to electronics recycling that protects worker health and safety, as well as ensuring environmentally sustainable practices that can actually deal with this global issue."

 

    On March 10, 2010, WIMS reported that a release from U.S. EPA regarding its sponsored R2 electronic recycling certification program does not mention what some consider to be a more restrictive and competing international certification program from the Basel Action Network (BAN) [See WIMS 3/10/10]. The two competing programs are just now getting underway and are certain to cause confusion for the public, recyclers, and manufacturers.

 

    The competing, new e-Stewards Certification and Standard from the Basel Action Network (BAN) is a certification program for electronics recycling created jointly by the environmental community and business leaders. In February, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) announced its endorsement of the e-Stewards program which it called "the first-ever certification program for electronics recycling." The e-Steward Certification is a fully accredited certification that relies on independent, third-party auditors to verify safe and ethical e-waste disposal. It is awarded to companies that recycle electronics without using practices that far too many in U.S. electronics recycling industry rely upon -- the use of municipal landfills and incinerators, the export to developing countries, or U.S. prison labor for disposing of toxic old electronics.

 

    Access a release from ISRI (click here). Access ISRI's Electronics Recycling website for additional details (click here). Access EPA's Responsible Recycling website (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the e-Stewards website for complete information on certification and related information (click here).