Across the country, local governments are faced with the challenge of meeting recycling goals, reducing solid waste tonnage and minimizing costs. Glass is one of the most challenging materials to recycle, with most county and city recycling programs incurring net costs to recycle the material. Over the years, several alternative uses for recycled glass have been identified, such as “glassphalt” and landscaping applications. However, a Florida program evaluating the feasibility of using pulverized recycled glass for beach renourishment may provide a cost-effective approach for managing this material.
In the July 2005 issue of Waste Age, an article entitled “Beach in a Bottle” (www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_beach_bottle/index.html) described a project that Broward County, Fla., is conducting to investigate the feasibility of using recycled glass for beach renourishment. The following is an update on that project.
The first phase was designed to gauge public perception of the project while conducting a comparative analysis of the properties of natural beach sand and the artificial sand made from glass cullet. On the public perception side, tourism officials and beach professionals were very interested in the concept, while Broward County residents found the idea equally appealing. Meanwhile, geotechnical and contaminant analyses of grain size, distribution, munsell color, carbonate content, grain angularity and chemical composition revealed that glass cullet compares closely to natural sand.
More recently, the county has been conducting additional research to determine the long-term viability of using recycled glass for beach erosion control and renourishment.
Aquarium and Abiotic Testing
In 2005, the county developed a biological analysis program to monitor the survivability of fish and other fauna species within specific proportions of natural sand and glass cullet. Species then were introduced into a matrix comprised of varying ratios of cullet and natural sand. The species' ability to survive was monitored for any deviations from natural sand. The glass cullet utilized for these and subsequent tests was similar in grain size to natural beach sand (approx. 0.33 to 0.90 mm). After two months of testing, officials determined that pulverized glass cullet does not adversely affect macro or microorganisms. The species studied displayed normal active behavior with the glass cullet and showed no adverse signs of physical stress. Results indicated that the organism mortality rate was equivalent to natural sand.
In March 2006, a test plot was constructed on the upland portion of Hollywood Beach for a six-month experiment to determine if glass cullet mixtures exhibit the same abiotic characteristics (temperature, moisture content, gas exchange) when compared to natural beach sand. The test plot simulated a sea turtle hatchery enclosure and contained 16 individual test areas, each measuring 5 feet square and 3 feet deep. The results indicated that the glass cullet/sand mixtures displayed no significant difference from natural sand, and the mixtures could allow for proper sea turtle embryo development.
Next Steps
The overall results of the geotechnical, public perception, aquarium and abiotic tests indicate that the project is technically feasible. In Broward County, the presence of nesting loggerhead turtles and the beach-based economy create unique concerns that must be considered and addressed in all beach erosion control and renourishment efforts. However, research shows that manufacturing a sand product from recycled glass is a promising solution anywhere beaches are eroding and glass is a net cost to recycle.
Broward County currently is permitting phase two of this demonstration project, which will involve experimental testing at the shoreline on Hollywood Beach. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of pulverized glass cullet will be placed at the shoreline, allowing the county and its project consultants to monitor its performance and evaluate its similarities to the existing beach sand when subjected to wind and waves. Specifically, the testing will determine if glass cullet can be used to address erosion “hot spots” on the beach, which are smaller areas that suffer from critical erosion problems. As part of this phase, the county also will be investigating the feasibility of long-term methods of producing the pulverized glass.
Peter Foye, Director, Recycling and Contract Division, Broward County, Fla.; Phil Bresee, Recycling Program Manager, Broward County, Fla.; Sanford Gutner, PE, Senior Associate, Malcolm Pirnie Inc.; Holly M. P. Burton, PE, Associate, Malcolm Pirnie Inc.; Ryann M. Davis, Engineer, Malcolm Pirnie Inc.
Respect your animals, earth and water. EPA Approved Hazardous Waste Transporter, Bio Waste Transporter (SDVOBE) and (DVBE) Certified, Disabled Veteran Owned Enterprise #46015 EPA # 000213637
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
WHEN CALIFORNIA PASSED the Electronic Waste and Recycling Act of 2003, it became the first state to legislate the handling and disposal of e-waste. The act establishes a point-of-purchase fee ranging from $6 to $10 that consumers will pay to retailers to help cover the costs of e-waste recycling.
Nevertheless, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Sacramento, expects the management and operational costs for haulers, municipalities, and recyclers of e-waste to increase as the number of one-day special events to collect the waste grows. Curbside and commingled collection methods often are not practical for monitors and tvs because these items tend to be too bulky for residential pickups and have high breakage rates.
In anticipation of this trend, and to help smooth out some of the challenges of hosting collection events, Peninsula Sanitary Services Inc. (PSSI), Stanford, Calif., Dell Computers, Round Rock, Texas, and the National Recycling Coalition (NRC), Washington, D.C., developed a public-private partnership and sponsored a two-day e-waste collection workshop at Stanford University in October. The workshop uncovered three top challenges to e-waste collection events: controlling finances, managing logistics and quantifying the event.
Controlling finances
Based on PSSI's workshop, the partners estimate an e-waste collection event can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $25,00 for a small event to $25,000 to $50,000 for a large hauler. PSSI's collection budget was approximately $15,000.
Workshop leaders say inviting corporate sponsors and donors to participate — a task that is not so easily accomplished — is one of the best ways to cut costs. Few major computer manufacturers are willing to pay for the collection of e-waste that is not their own. Local ordinances also may prevent a sponsor from advertising on public property with banners or logos. However, obtaining federal, state, local or private foundation grants and soliciting volunteers will help entice corporate sponsors because companies will be more likely to participate if the financial burden will be shared.
To attract unpaid volunteers, companies should allow partners, civic groups or nonprofit organizations to receive the donated computers. Volunteer Match [www.volunteermatch.com] can be used to help find volunteer event staffing. Remember to train volunteers and to obtain a waiver or signed release from them excusing the waste hauler or event sponsor from liability.
Managing logistics
Logistics are best left up to professional service providers because they have expertise in acquiring the necessary permits, security, traffic control, insurance, signage, safety equipment, containers, semi tractor-trailers, forklifts, drivers and material handlers. Additionally, a key component of the collection of monitors is reuse or resale. It is important that a logistics company with experience in handling electronics be used to ensure a higher yield rate on materials.
Quantifying the event
Quantifying an event can help advertise and promote future workshops, and it can land additional grant money. Numbers and statistics will prove to potential sponsors and to the public that the waste hauler is operating efficiently.
PSSI collected more than 47 tons of surplus, obsolete or end-of-life monitors, computers and related equipment. With a budget of $15,000, collection costs amounted to approximately $319 per ton, which is toward the low end of the spectrum. Studies conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C., state that e-waste collection costs range from $240 per ton to $1,240 per ton.
In addition to adding e-waste runs to curbside routes, increasing one-day e-waste events demonstrates the waste industry's concern and creativity in solving an environmental problem. More information on e-waste events can be found in “Computer Recycling for Education,” available at Barnes & Noble Bookstores or www.computerrecycleforeduc.com.
Nevertheless, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Sacramento, expects the management and operational costs for haulers, municipalities, and recyclers of e-waste to increase as the number of one-day special events to collect the waste grows. Curbside and commingled collection methods often are not practical for monitors and tvs because these items tend to be too bulky for residential pickups and have high breakage rates.
In anticipation of this trend, and to help smooth out some of the challenges of hosting collection events, Peninsula Sanitary Services Inc. (PSSI), Stanford, Calif., Dell Computers, Round Rock, Texas, and the National Recycling Coalition (NRC), Washington, D.C., developed a public-private partnership and sponsored a two-day e-waste collection workshop at Stanford University in October. The workshop uncovered three top challenges to e-waste collection events: controlling finances, managing logistics and quantifying the event.
Controlling finances
Based on PSSI's workshop, the partners estimate an e-waste collection event can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $25,00 for a small event to $25,000 to $50,000 for a large hauler. PSSI's collection budget was approximately $15,000.
Workshop leaders say inviting corporate sponsors and donors to participate — a task that is not so easily accomplished — is one of the best ways to cut costs. Few major computer manufacturers are willing to pay for the collection of e-waste that is not their own. Local ordinances also may prevent a sponsor from advertising on public property with banners or logos. However, obtaining federal, state, local or private foundation grants and soliciting volunteers will help entice corporate sponsors because companies will be more likely to participate if the financial burden will be shared.
To attract unpaid volunteers, companies should allow partners, civic groups or nonprofit organizations to receive the donated computers. Volunteer Match [www.volunteermatch.com] can be used to help find volunteer event staffing. Remember to train volunteers and to obtain a waiver or signed release from them excusing the waste hauler or event sponsor from liability.
Managing logistics
Logistics are best left up to professional service providers because they have expertise in acquiring the necessary permits, security, traffic control, insurance, signage, safety equipment, containers, semi tractor-trailers, forklifts, drivers and material handlers. Additionally, a key component of the collection of monitors is reuse or resale. It is important that a logistics company with experience in handling electronics be used to ensure a higher yield rate on materials.
Quantifying the event
Quantifying an event can help advertise and promote future workshops, and it can land additional grant money. Numbers and statistics will prove to potential sponsors and to the public that the waste hauler is operating efficiently.
PSSI collected more than 47 tons of surplus, obsolete or end-of-life monitors, computers and related equipment. With a budget of $15,000, collection costs amounted to approximately $319 per ton, which is toward the low end of the spectrum. Studies conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C., state that e-waste collection costs range from $240 per ton to $1,240 per ton.
In addition to adding e-waste runs to curbside routes, increasing one-day e-waste events demonstrates the waste industry's concern and creativity in solving an environmental problem. More information on e-waste events can be found in “Computer Recycling for Education,” available at Barnes & Noble Bookstores or www.computerrecycleforeduc.com.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Wireless Worries
HIGH-PITCHED DIGITAL MELODIES and the phrase, “Can you hear me now?” have become mainstream in recent years, thanks to the growing popularity of wireless phones. But while consumers are buying phones equipped with games, text messaging and cameras, the industry has yet to provide for another important demand — an easy disposal system for that outdated phone and a product that is easy to recycle or refurbish.
Next year, Americans are predicted to buy more than 100 million new cell phones and stuff their old phones into closets, drawers and other nooks around the house or office. At that point, the stockpile of out-of-service phones will rise to 500 million units weighing 250,000 tons (about one pound each), according to “Calling All Cell Phones,” a 2003 report by Inform Inc., a New York-based research organization.
“The numbers today are the same as what we found in 2003,” says Eric Most, who authored the Inform report. “At current rates of recovery, hundreds of millions of used cell phones will soon wind up in landfills or incinerators where they'll release arsenic, lead, cadmium and many other toxic materials that threaten human health and the environment,” he says.
Thus, the cell phone industry is scrambling to develop comprehensive disposal alternatives. Cell phone recycling programs are moving in the right direction, Most says, but their scope is dwarfed by the stunning growth of the industry. In 1995, wireless phone carriers supplied service to approximately 34 million subscribers. At the beginning of 2003, there were 141 million cell phone users. According to industry estimates, the average cell phone lasts about 1.5 years. If this estimate is correct, 141 million more phones will require disposal by the end of 2005.
But developing recycling streams for new products takes time. Between 1999 and early 2003, cell phone recycling efforts netted fewer than 5 million phones, about 1 percent of those discarded.
Wireless industry affiliates account for the lion's share of discarded cell phone collection and recycling, according to Inform. Programs include Donate-A-Phone, operated by the Washington, D.C.-based Wireless Foundation, and the Call-To-Protect program, which Verizon Wireless of Bedminster, N.J., operates through its organization HopeLine. AT&T Wireless recently entered the field with a Wireless Reuse & Recycle program.
Additionally, a number of manufacturers and wireless carriers participate in Wireless Foundation programs: Alltel, Cingular, Motorola, Nextel, Rural Cellular Corp. and Sprint. These programs refurbish phones and donate them to charities or resell them to new users. Cell phones that cannot be refurbished are recycled back into the manufacturing process. However, that leaves 495 million cell phones with no place to go but the landfill.
“Bottom line, this is a matter for concern, but not alarm,” says Bruce Parker, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a sub-association of the Environmental Industry Association (EIA). “Every few years, the e-waste stream changes as technology replaces older products. The technical ability to discover toxic and potentially negative aspects of electronic products is still far ahead of the ability to deal with those discoveries in terms of social policies.”
Parker goes on to note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C., currently is working with companies that manufacture electronic products to develop an infrastructure of programs to refurbish and recycle e-waste, including cell phones. Yet he believes the responsibility for dealing with e-waste must ultimately fall on manufacturers and retailers.
“It is an upstream responsibility,” Parker says. “We are part of the loop in that we eyeball incoming trash and comply with landfill bans by sending banned materials back. But you can't deal with the problem itself downstream at the landfill.”
The Inform report draws a similar conclusion and recommends a number of steps to help cell phone retailers and manufacturers control the problem.
The recommendations include national advertising campaigns that advise consumers to return their old cell phones to stores and manufacturers, to take advantage of cell phone collection drives, and to donate cell phones to charities that refurbish and redistribute the phones.
Inform also recommends that manufacturers develop more durable plastic components to reduce the number of parts that must be replaced during phone refurbishing. Manufacturers also could standardize cell phone design elements, such as adapters, batteries and accessories, to speed refurbishing and allow more parts to be recycled back into manufacturing. Other recommendations include reducing toxic contaminants in parts, simplifying software reprogramming procedures and color-coding batteries to simplify sorting.
The Inform report also makes four suggestions to public policy makers:
Require consumers to make deposits on cell phone purchases. The promise of a refund would provide an incentive to return used phones for reuse and recycling.
Institute landfill bans on cell phones.
Make manufacturers responsible for managing end-of-life cell phones to create incentives for manufacturers to design products that are easier to refurbish and recycle.
Evaluate the effectiveness of such policies by requiring manufacturers, retailers and recyclers to report on the collection, recycling, refurbishment and eventual end-use of old cell phones.
Efforts to keep cell phones out of landfills may not hold huge selling power among consumers. But if the industry continues to develop technology at its current pace, investing in reusable products could be music to the waste industry's ears.
Next year, Americans are predicted to buy more than 100 million new cell phones and stuff their old phones into closets, drawers and other nooks around the house or office. At that point, the stockpile of out-of-service phones will rise to 500 million units weighing 250,000 tons (about one pound each), according to “Calling All Cell Phones,” a 2003 report by Inform Inc., a New York-based research organization.
“The numbers today are the same as what we found in 2003,” says Eric Most, who authored the Inform report. “At current rates of recovery, hundreds of millions of used cell phones will soon wind up in landfills or incinerators where they'll release arsenic, lead, cadmium and many other toxic materials that threaten human health and the environment,” he says.
Thus, the cell phone industry is scrambling to develop comprehensive disposal alternatives. Cell phone recycling programs are moving in the right direction, Most says, but their scope is dwarfed by the stunning growth of the industry. In 1995, wireless phone carriers supplied service to approximately 34 million subscribers. At the beginning of 2003, there were 141 million cell phone users. According to industry estimates, the average cell phone lasts about 1.5 years. If this estimate is correct, 141 million more phones will require disposal by the end of 2005.
But developing recycling streams for new products takes time. Between 1999 and early 2003, cell phone recycling efforts netted fewer than 5 million phones, about 1 percent of those discarded.
Wireless industry affiliates account for the lion's share of discarded cell phone collection and recycling, according to Inform. Programs include Donate-A-Phone, operated by the Washington, D.C.-based Wireless Foundation, and the Call-To-Protect program, which Verizon Wireless of Bedminster, N.J., operates through its organization HopeLine. AT&T Wireless recently entered the field with a Wireless Reuse & Recycle program.
Additionally, a number of manufacturers and wireless carriers participate in Wireless Foundation programs: Alltel, Cingular, Motorola, Nextel, Rural Cellular Corp. and Sprint. These programs refurbish phones and donate them to charities or resell them to new users. Cell phones that cannot be refurbished are recycled back into the manufacturing process. However, that leaves 495 million cell phones with no place to go but the landfill.
“Bottom line, this is a matter for concern, but not alarm,” says Bruce Parker, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a sub-association of the Environmental Industry Association (EIA). “Every few years, the e-waste stream changes as technology replaces older products. The technical ability to discover toxic and potentially negative aspects of electronic products is still far ahead of the ability to deal with those discoveries in terms of social policies.”
Parker goes on to note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C., currently is working with companies that manufacture electronic products to develop an infrastructure of programs to refurbish and recycle e-waste, including cell phones. Yet he believes the responsibility for dealing with e-waste must ultimately fall on manufacturers and retailers.
“It is an upstream responsibility,” Parker says. “We are part of the loop in that we eyeball incoming trash and comply with landfill bans by sending banned materials back. But you can't deal with the problem itself downstream at the landfill.”
The Inform report draws a similar conclusion and recommends a number of steps to help cell phone retailers and manufacturers control the problem.
The recommendations include national advertising campaigns that advise consumers to return their old cell phones to stores and manufacturers, to take advantage of cell phone collection drives, and to donate cell phones to charities that refurbish and redistribute the phones.
Inform also recommends that manufacturers develop more durable plastic components to reduce the number of parts that must be replaced during phone refurbishing. Manufacturers also could standardize cell phone design elements, such as adapters, batteries and accessories, to speed refurbishing and allow more parts to be recycled back into manufacturing. Other recommendations include reducing toxic contaminants in parts, simplifying software reprogramming procedures and color-coding batteries to simplify sorting.
The Inform report also makes four suggestions to public policy makers:
Require consumers to make deposits on cell phone purchases. The promise of a refund would provide an incentive to return used phones for reuse and recycling.
Institute landfill bans on cell phones.
Make manufacturers responsible for managing end-of-life cell phones to create incentives for manufacturers to design products that are easier to refurbish and recycle.
Evaluate the effectiveness of such policies by requiring manufacturers, retailers and recyclers to report on the collection, recycling, refurbishment and eventual end-use of old cell phones.
Efforts to keep cell phones out of landfills may not hold huge selling power among consumers. But if the industry continues to develop technology at its current pace, investing in reusable products could be music to the waste industry's ears.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Does recycling pay?
In the early 1980s, New Jersey environmental officials adopted a slogan: "Recycling Pays." They now regret that choice of words.
Recycling managers in New Jersey and throughout the nation are in-creasingly under scrutiny to justify the costs and benefits of their operations. Many managers feel that they are fighting against the unrealistic expectations of residents and elected officials, who want to see profits from the sale of recycled materials.
As providers of public services, recycling managers should be able to quantify the costs and benefits of their programs, but the programs should not be judged against a profit goal. Because recycling is a solid waste management option, it should be judged against competing options such as source reduction, landfilling, incineration and composting.
The critical question is not, "Did your recycling program cost the residents money?" Cost is unavoidable and must be expected. Instead, ask, "Do the recycling costs reduce the total cost of disposing your community's solid waste?" Residents expect to pay for garbage disposal, and recycling is simply an alternative method for disposing of their household waste.
To answer these cost-benefit questions, first identify the community's or organization's total cost of recycling. Then, compare that figure to costs that would have been incurred without recycling. The calculation is built around the following formula: Net costs or savings of recycling is equal to total recycling collection and processing costs plus or minus recycling disposal costs minus avoided costs of garbage collection and disposal.
For managers at public agencies, some relevant costs may be difficult to quantify. For example, private firms must account for the cost of renting or acquiring property and facilities such as garages or administrative office space. Public operations often do not have comparable costs on their ledgers, but the costs can be estimated using average local rental rates for office and garage space. Total costs also must include direct and overhead costs of employees whose functions are not directly related to recycling programs, such as receptionists, lawyers, custodians and auditors.
Many publicly run programs have never had to consider such items, but they must be included to determine the full cost of providing a public service.
Next, add these costs to any additional charges required to dispose the recyclables. If you are able to sell your materials rather than pay to dispose them, sales revenue should be subtracted from program costs to determine the total cost of recycling. Regional price differences, transportation costs, quality factors and volatility in market prices may dictate that some operations receive money for their materials while others pay markets to accept them.
Finally, the total costs of recycling must be compared with any reduced garbage collection and disposal costs to determine the net costs or savings of recycling.
Figuring It Out To illustrate the point, consider an example in which a municipal recycling program identifies $147,810 in direct and overhead expenses to provide curbside commingled recycling to a community of 15,000 residents. The program collected 1,950 tons of recyclables, and it paid an average of $10 per ton to send its recyclables to a privately operated material recovery facility.
In one year, the community contracted with a private hauler to collect solid waste at a fixed cost of $357,000 for the year, paid a garbage tipping fee of $100 per ton at a transfer station and disposed 9,440 tons of garbage.
The calculations for net cost or savings of recycling are:
* The cost of recycling collection ($147,810) plus the cost of disposing recyclables (1,950 tons at $10 per ton) equals the total cost of recycling ($167,310).
Recycling managers in New Jersey and throughout the nation are in-creasingly under scrutiny to justify the costs and benefits of their operations. Many managers feel that they are fighting against the unrealistic expectations of residents and elected officials, who want to see profits from the sale of recycled materials.
As providers of public services, recycling managers should be able to quantify the costs and benefits of their programs, but the programs should not be judged against a profit goal. Because recycling is a solid waste management option, it should be judged against competing options such as source reduction, landfilling, incineration and composting.
The critical question is not, "Did your recycling program cost the residents money?" Cost is unavoidable and must be expected. Instead, ask, "Do the recycling costs reduce the total cost of disposing your community's solid waste?" Residents expect to pay for garbage disposal, and recycling is simply an alternative method for disposing of their household waste.
To answer these cost-benefit questions, first identify the community's or organization's total cost of recycling. Then, compare that figure to costs that would have been incurred without recycling. The calculation is built around the following formula: Net costs or savings of recycling is equal to total recycling collection and processing costs plus or minus recycling disposal costs minus avoided costs of garbage collection and disposal.
For managers at public agencies, some relevant costs may be difficult to quantify. For example, private firms must account for the cost of renting or acquiring property and facilities such as garages or administrative office space. Public operations often do not have comparable costs on their ledgers, but the costs can be estimated using average local rental rates for office and garage space. Total costs also must include direct and overhead costs of employees whose functions are not directly related to recycling programs, such as receptionists, lawyers, custodians and auditors.
Many publicly run programs have never had to consider such items, but they must be included to determine the full cost of providing a public service.
Next, add these costs to any additional charges required to dispose the recyclables. If you are able to sell your materials rather than pay to dispose them, sales revenue should be subtracted from program costs to determine the total cost of recycling. Regional price differences, transportation costs, quality factors and volatility in market prices may dictate that some operations receive money for their materials while others pay markets to accept them.
Finally, the total costs of recycling must be compared with any reduced garbage collection and disposal costs to determine the net costs or savings of recycling.
Figuring It Out To illustrate the point, consider an example in which a municipal recycling program identifies $147,810 in direct and overhead expenses to provide curbside commingled recycling to a community of 15,000 residents. The program collected 1,950 tons of recyclables, and it paid an average of $10 per ton to send its recyclables to a privately operated material recovery facility.
In one year, the community contracted with a private hauler to collect solid waste at a fixed cost of $357,000 for the year, paid a garbage tipping fee of $100 per ton at a transfer station and disposed 9,440 tons of garbage.
The calculations for net cost or savings of recycling are:
* The cost of recycling collection ($147,810) plus the cost of disposing recyclables (1,950 tons at $10 per ton) equals the total cost of recycling ($167,310).
Monday, February 25, 2008
Petal to the Metal
FOR ALL THE DATA that goes into computers, many elements come out. When computers become obsolete, metals such as steel, aluminum, wire, cable and other resources can be extracted and recycled. But other more dangerous materials are also potential byproducts of electronics recovery, including toxics such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium. With electronics recycling receiving increasing scrutiny, the pressure is on manufacturers and electronics recyclers to prove that they can dismantle, recycle and dispose of electronics in a responsible way.
It is precisely because of this scrutiny that Noranda Recycling Inc. recently sought ISO 14001 environmental certification for its East Providence, R.I., recovery facility; it received certification in January. The San Jose, Calif.-based company is one of the largest electronics recyclers in the world, so maintaining an environmentally sound operation is critical. “The plan is to have all five of Noranda's recycling facilities certified this year,” says Steve Skurnac, Noranda Recycling's president. “It's important for us because our customers look at ISO certification as a validation of the systems we have in place. It's an international standard, so it sells well in Europe and Asia. Having the certification speeds up the process of customer evaluation.”
Noranda's Rhode Island facility, which employs 30 people and processes about 5,500 to 7,500 tons per year of e-scrap, is just one aspect of the multifaceted company. After a corporate reorganization in 2003, Noranda Recycling says it is ready to handle the onslaught of electronics entering the waste stream every day.
E-Waste in Overdrive
According to the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 2 million tons of electronic waste are buried in landfills each year. By 2005, the agency predicts that nearly 250 million computers will become obsolete and require disposal. Yet in 2001, only 11 percent of personal computers retired in the United States were recycled. Computers are just the most obvious e-waste culprit; hand-held devices, cell phones and other small electronics also are piling up. In the next year, the EPA estimates that 130 million mobile phones will be discarded.
More than half of all end-of-life electronics are shipped to Asia, where environmental and technological capabilities to recycle them are limited. In February 2003, the European Commission published the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, placing financial responsibility for recycling end-of-life electronics on manufacturers. Stateside corporate responsibility programs are on the rise as well, with several computer and electronics manufacturers establishing take-back and recycling programs.
To meet the growing demand for electronics recycling, Toronto-based Noranda Inc. — an international mining and metals company — announced last summer that it had reorganized its U.S.-based recycling operations into one company, called Noranda Recycling. The new company brings together three facilities in San Jose and Roseville, Calif., and Lavergne, Tenn., that had previously been operated by Micro Metallics Corp., as well as the East Providence facility, which had been operated by Noranda Sampling Inc. The company also opened an electronics recycling facility in Brampton, Ontario, last year.
Together, the five facilities make Noranda Recycling one of the largest processors of precious metal-bearing electronic materials in North America. The new company employs about 200 people and processes between 75,000 and 170,000 tons of recyclable raw materials each year.
“Last summer, we realized that we were getting some critical mass,” Skurnac says. “We were going to have five different sites operating, so we said, ‘Let's have a new company in the states, to give our Noranda name much more branding’ … Now it's much clearer and allows us to treat all five facilities as one operation. From a business perspective, we're all in this together.”
Although they are managed under one umbrella, Noranda Recycling's five facilities have different missions. The San Jose and East Providence facilities focus on copper and precious metal recovery from electronics, telecommunications, automotive, refining and metal fabrication industries. The Brampton, Roseville and Lavergne facilities focus on end-of-life electronics recycling through partnerships with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) such as Palo Alto, Calif.-based Hewlett-Packard (HP). Noranda's newest facility in Brampton recovers a typical variety of materials — hardware, CD-ROMs, tape drives, disk drives, CD writers, modems and circuit boards.
“The two plants on the extreme coasts, the San Jose facility and the old Noranda Sampling facility [in Rhode Island], are geared around metal-bearing electronics recovery,” Skurnac explains. “If you sent them material, there's a 99 percent chance we're going to pay you for the metal contained in that material. If you send material to Roseville or Nashville or Brampton, you will be paying us to take the material.”
Playing it Safe
Noranda's operation is centered on its electronics “take-back” partnerships with HP and other manufacturers, which began at the Roseville facility in the mid-1990s. In July 2002, HP built on this relationship by launching a take-back service for Canadians to recycle unwanted computers and equipment from any manufacturer. The service includes pickup, transportation, evaluation for reuse or donation, and recycling for products ranging from printers to scanners. Noranda then provides HP and other OEMs with disassembly, product testing and metal recovery services at its Tennessee facility.
Other manufacturers may be as for ward-thinking as HP, but not as forthcoming. “We do provide a similar service to other OEMs,” Skurnac says. “It's similar in that the manufacturers manage the internal program, then we take over when it comes time to handling the material. So it's a very close relationship we have to those groups. They want to do the right thing, but not bring a lot of scrutiny to themselves.”
In 2003, the San Jose-based Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, an electronics watchdog organization, and the Computer TakeBack Campaign, a similarly minded coalition, released a report that examined HP's partnership with Noranda and the Roseville facility, comparing it with a similar deal between Austin, Texas-based Dell Inc., and Washington, D.C.-based UNICOR. The report examined the partnerships based on three criteria: Transparency and accountability to the public; general compliance with occupational health and safety standards; and use of best recycling practices and their potential for wide adoption by the private sector.
The report praised the Noranda facility for allowing the coalition's industrial hygienist to inspect the facility freely and speak informally with employees. Noranda also had developed efficient warehousing systems that electronically tracked materials throughout the recycling process. Disassembly workstations were well-lit, ergonomically designed and computerized, with each workbench equipped with a hand-held device to scan and retrieve information about the equipment to be salvaged, the report stated.
Safety also was paramount in the Roseville facility, according to the report. Chairs and tabletops could be adjusted for worker comfort, and motorized pallet jackets and forklifts were used to avoid worker injury. Workers were encouraged to provide feedback on product design and to suggest alternative tools to improve safety and efficiency. Additionally, brooms were removed from the facility and replaced with vacuum cleaners to control dust, which can contain lead, flame retardants and other toxins from computer dismantling and shredding operations.
The report concluded that the Noranda facility “demonstrated characteristics that other electronic waste managers and policy decision makers might emulate as they begin to develop recycling programs.”
These characteristics include:
Eliminating tools, such as hammers, that cause injury and health hazards;
Developing efficient warehousing systems that electronically track materials through the recycling process;
Installing mechanized systems, such as crushers, that reduce worker exposure to toxics;
Developing work stations designed to reduce ergonomic hazards;
Developing a database that allows workers to access information on hazardous materials; and
Providing non-management representation on the company's health and safety committee.
“It was a good experience to visit a work site where there appears to be a significant investment in occupational and environmental health and safety,” the lead investigator wrote.
Minding the Market
In the United States, electronics “recyclers” have been widely criticized for sending obsolete high-tech trash to Asia, where unsafe dismantling systems pose threats to Asian workers and the environment. “There are two key things that pop up in this business,” Skurnac says. “One relates to recycling operators and this whole notion of environmentally sound management of the equipment. We make the point that, if you call yourself an electronics recycler, make sure that you are not just brokering material to destinations unknown. And if you're a company who's disposing of the material, make sure you know where it's going. Any reputable recycling company can give you that information.”
In the meantime, Noranda and other recyclers are facing new electronics legislation. Dozens of states have passed or are considering bills to legislate the disposal and recycling of electronic waste. Some states have instituted landfill bans on certain electronics or have created fees to support funds for electronics recycling. Congress is considering national electronics legislation and in March, the EPA announced a pilot project to measure the economic impacts of environmentally sound electronics management. “If you're going to be in electronics recycling,” Skurnac says, “you better be willing to be involved in public policy.”
In the midst of this highly charged and increasingly regulated sector, North American recyclers are still dealing with the widespread export of scrap to China. “The commodity metal markets have improved, but that has less of an impact on our business than people think,” Skurnac says. “We're buying raw material. So if the price of gold goes up, the customer expects to be paid more. What it might do is drive material to us that wasn't worth recycling before. You might make the argument that there's more material in the marketplace. But with China buying every bit of scrap material, it hasn't made it easier for Noranda or anyone to source raw material.”
In fact, Noranda was able to open its Brampton facility in part because another electronics recycler could not compete in a difficult marketplace. “We basically stepped in and bought all of their equipment, and we went out and acquired a brand new building,” Skurnac says. Today, he reports that volumes in Canada are substantially higher than the company originally had anticipated.
Skurnac is confident that the electronics recycling business will grow. New legislation in Europe and elsewhere is likely to send more materials to Noranda's facilities, which could easily accept increased feedstock, he says. “Hopefully, a year from now we'll have more plants or the ones we have will be so busy we won't know what to do with ourselves. We think there are market opportunities for growth, and we plan to be a part of that.”
Kim A. O'Connell is a contributing editor based in Arlington, Va.
WasteExpo Watch
It is precisely because of this scrutiny that Noranda Recycling Inc. recently sought ISO 14001 environmental certification for its East Providence, R.I., recovery facility; it received certification in January. The San Jose, Calif.-based company is one of the largest electronics recyclers in the world, so maintaining an environmentally sound operation is critical. “The plan is to have all five of Noranda's recycling facilities certified this year,” says Steve Skurnac, Noranda Recycling's president. “It's important for us because our customers look at ISO certification as a validation of the systems we have in place. It's an international standard, so it sells well in Europe and Asia. Having the certification speeds up the process of customer evaluation.”
Noranda's Rhode Island facility, which employs 30 people and processes about 5,500 to 7,500 tons per year of e-scrap, is just one aspect of the multifaceted company. After a corporate reorganization in 2003, Noranda Recycling says it is ready to handle the onslaught of electronics entering the waste stream every day.
E-Waste in Overdrive
According to the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 2 million tons of electronic waste are buried in landfills each year. By 2005, the agency predicts that nearly 250 million computers will become obsolete and require disposal. Yet in 2001, only 11 percent of personal computers retired in the United States were recycled. Computers are just the most obvious e-waste culprit; hand-held devices, cell phones and other small electronics also are piling up. In the next year, the EPA estimates that 130 million mobile phones will be discarded.
More than half of all end-of-life electronics are shipped to Asia, where environmental and technological capabilities to recycle them are limited. In February 2003, the European Commission published the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, placing financial responsibility for recycling end-of-life electronics on manufacturers. Stateside corporate responsibility programs are on the rise as well, with several computer and electronics manufacturers establishing take-back and recycling programs.
To meet the growing demand for electronics recycling, Toronto-based Noranda Inc. — an international mining and metals company — announced last summer that it had reorganized its U.S.-based recycling operations into one company, called Noranda Recycling. The new company brings together three facilities in San Jose and Roseville, Calif., and Lavergne, Tenn., that had previously been operated by Micro Metallics Corp., as well as the East Providence facility, which had been operated by Noranda Sampling Inc. The company also opened an electronics recycling facility in Brampton, Ontario, last year.
Together, the five facilities make Noranda Recycling one of the largest processors of precious metal-bearing electronic materials in North America. The new company employs about 200 people and processes between 75,000 and 170,000 tons of recyclable raw materials each year.
“Last summer, we realized that we were getting some critical mass,” Skurnac says. “We were going to have five different sites operating, so we said, ‘Let's have a new company in the states, to give our Noranda name much more branding’ … Now it's much clearer and allows us to treat all five facilities as one operation. From a business perspective, we're all in this together.”
Although they are managed under one umbrella, Noranda Recycling's five facilities have different missions. The San Jose and East Providence facilities focus on copper and precious metal recovery from electronics, telecommunications, automotive, refining and metal fabrication industries. The Brampton, Roseville and Lavergne facilities focus on end-of-life electronics recycling through partnerships with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) such as Palo Alto, Calif.-based Hewlett-Packard (HP). Noranda's newest facility in Brampton recovers a typical variety of materials — hardware, CD-ROMs, tape drives, disk drives, CD writers, modems and circuit boards.
“The two plants on the extreme coasts, the San Jose facility and the old Noranda Sampling facility [in Rhode Island], are geared around metal-bearing electronics recovery,” Skurnac explains. “If you sent them material, there's a 99 percent chance we're going to pay you for the metal contained in that material. If you send material to Roseville or Nashville or Brampton, you will be paying us to take the material.”
Playing it Safe
Noranda's operation is centered on its electronics “take-back” partnerships with HP and other manufacturers, which began at the Roseville facility in the mid-1990s. In July 2002, HP built on this relationship by launching a take-back service for Canadians to recycle unwanted computers and equipment from any manufacturer. The service includes pickup, transportation, evaluation for reuse or donation, and recycling for products ranging from printers to scanners. Noranda then provides HP and other OEMs with disassembly, product testing and metal recovery services at its Tennessee facility.
Other manufacturers may be as for ward-thinking as HP, but not as forthcoming. “We do provide a similar service to other OEMs,” Skurnac says. “It's similar in that the manufacturers manage the internal program, then we take over when it comes time to handling the material. So it's a very close relationship we have to those groups. They want to do the right thing, but not bring a lot of scrutiny to themselves.”
In 2003, the San Jose-based Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, an electronics watchdog organization, and the Computer TakeBack Campaign, a similarly minded coalition, released a report that examined HP's partnership with Noranda and the Roseville facility, comparing it with a similar deal between Austin, Texas-based Dell Inc., and Washington, D.C.-based UNICOR. The report examined the partnerships based on three criteria: Transparency and accountability to the public; general compliance with occupational health and safety standards; and use of best recycling practices and their potential for wide adoption by the private sector.
The report praised the Noranda facility for allowing the coalition's industrial hygienist to inspect the facility freely and speak informally with employees. Noranda also had developed efficient warehousing systems that electronically tracked materials throughout the recycling process. Disassembly workstations were well-lit, ergonomically designed and computerized, with each workbench equipped with a hand-held device to scan and retrieve information about the equipment to be salvaged, the report stated.
Safety also was paramount in the Roseville facility, according to the report. Chairs and tabletops could be adjusted for worker comfort, and motorized pallet jackets and forklifts were used to avoid worker injury. Workers were encouraged to provide feedback on product design and to suggest alternative tools to improve safety and efficiency. Additionally, brooms were removed from the facility and replaced with vacuum cleaners to control dust, which can contain lead, flame retardants and other toxins from computer dismantling and shredding operations.
The report concluded that the Noranda facility “demonstrated characteristics that other electronic waste managers and policy decision makers might emulate as they begin to develop recycling programs.”
These characteristics include:
Eliminating tools, such as hammers, that cause injury and health hazards;
Developing efficient warehousing systems that electronically track materials through the recycling process;
Installing mechanized systems, such as crushers, that reduce worker exposure to toxics;
Developing work stations designed to reduce ergonomic hazards;
Developing a database that allows workers to access information on hazardous materials; and
Providing non-management representation on the company's health and safety committee.
“It was a good experience to visit a work site where there appears to be a significant investment in occupational and environmental health and safety,” the lead investigator wrote.
Minding the Market
In the United States, electronics “recyclers” have been widely criticized for sending obsolete high-tech trash to Asia, where unsafe dismantling systems pose threats to Asian workers and the environment. “There are two key things that pop up in this business,” Skurnac says. “One relates to recycling operators and this whole notion of environmentally sound management of the equipment. We make the point that, if you call yourself an electronics recycler, make sure that you are not just brokering material to destinations unknown. And if you're a company who's disposing of the material, make sure you know where it's going. Any reputable recycling company can give you that information.”
In the meantime, Noranda and other recyclers are facing new electronics legislation. Dozens of states have passed or are considering bills to legislate the disposal and recycling of electronic waste. Some states have instituted landfill bans on certain electronics or have created fees to support funds for electronics recycling. Congress is considering national electronics legislation and in March, the EPA announced a pilot project to measure the economic impacts of environmentally sound electronics management. “If you're going to be in electronics recycling,” Skurnac says, “you better be willing to be involved in public policy.”
In the midst of this highly charged and increasingly regulated sector, North American recyclers are still dealing with the widespread export of scrap to China. “The commodity metal markets have improved, but that has less of an impact on our business than people think,” Skurnac says. “We're buying raw material. So if the price of gold goes up, the customer expects to be paid more. What it might do is drive material to us that wasn't worth recycling before. You might make the argument that there's more material in the marketplace. But with China buying every bit of scrap material, it hasn't made it easier for Noranda or anyone to source raw material.”
In fact, Noranda was able to open its Brampton facility in part because another electronics recycler could not compete in a difficult marketplace. “We basically stepped in and bought all of their equipment, and we went out and acquired a brand new building,” Skurnac says. Today, he reports that volumes in Canada are substantially higher than the company originally had anticipated.
Skurnac is confident that the electronics recycling business will grow. New legislation in Europe and elsewhere is likely to send more materials to Noranda's facilities, which could easily accept increased feedstock, he says. “Hopefully, a year from now we'll have more plants or the ones we have will be so busy we won't know what to do with ourselves. We think there are market opportunities for growth, and we plan to be a part of that.”
Kim A. O'Connell is a contributing editor based in Arlington, Va.
WasteExpo Watch
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Take Action List
Used electronic devices, known as e-waste, are increasingly becoming a larger part of our waste. Fortunately, there are a number of options available to those who want to recycle their old electronic items.
To address the increasing amount of e-waste, many state and local governments, electronics manufacturers, and non-profit organizations have created comprehensive recycling programs. Several states, including California, Maine, Maryland, Texas and Washington, have even enacted laws requiring the collection of certain electronics.
E-waste recycling options vary across the country. So, the first step to determine what options are available in your area is to review information about your local recycling program. This information is available on Earth 911 (using the recycling locator database at the top of this page), some local government websites and the following websites:
E.P.A. Product Stewartship
National Recycling Coalition
E Recycling Central (includes a list of questions to ask recyclers)
Basel Action Network
Computer Take Back Campaign
In addition to “traditional” recycling programs, some electronics manufacturers and retailers also offer e-waste recycling. Many manufacturer-sponsored programs will accept and process their brand for free. Some accept other brands for a small fee.
After determining what options are available, it is important to determine whether a recycler is operating under strict environmental controls and high worker safety protections. A few general questions to ask include:
Is the recycler certified (such as an ISO 14001 environmental management certification) and does it follow a set of industry recognized guidelines?
Does the recycler actually recycle most of the e-waste materials collected (It is best if the company can recycle 90 percent or more of the materials)?
Does the recycler have written procedures for removing and disposing of mercury lamps in electronic products? Many manufacturer and government sponsored programs have extensive online information detailing the way in which recycling is handled.
In addition to choosing a recycler, it is also important to prepare your e-waste for recycling. For computer recycling, one important concern is to erase all data from the computer before sending it off for recycling.
However, this should be a factor regardless of what one does with an old computer because electronic data can be retrieved from hard drives. There are many options (such as software) to ensure that the data is permanently erased.
In fact, many recycling firms will scrub the hard drive and certify that all data has been erased. Before sending your computer to a recycler, check to verify that this option is available.
Manufacturer Specific Programs
Apple
Dell
Hewlett-Packard
Acer
Toshiba Trade-In and Recycling Program
Gateway
Lenovo/IBM (will also accept other e-waste of other computer manufacturers)
Sony
Panasonic
Epson
Retailer Programs
Circuit City (Easy-trade in program)
Best Buy
Staples (accepts computers, monitors, laptops, and desktop printers, faxes and all-in-ones)
EPA Plug-In Partners (lists manufacturers, retailers and service providers that offer recycling of e-waste)
Donation
EPA–lists options for donating or recycling e-waste
Techsoup–lists non-profit organizations and recyclers of e-waste
Goodwill (some locations accept computers)–website includes tips on how to donate computers
Cell Phone Recycling/Donation
Motorola (accepts all brands for free)
Nokia (accepts all brands for free)
Call to Recycle
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (donation of cell phones)
Call to Protect
Verizon Wireless (accepts phones at Verizon stores)
AT&T Wireless (accepts phones at AT&T stores)
T-Mobile Wireless (accepts phones in stores and by mail)
Sprint Wireless (accepts phones in stores and by mail; recycling proceeds go to charity)
To address the increasing amount of e-waste, many state and local governments, electronics manufacturers, and non-profit organizations have created comprehensive recycling programs. Several states, including California, Maine, Maryland, Texas and Washington, have even enacted laws requiring the collection of certain electronics.
E-waste recycling options vary across the country. So, the first step to determine what options are available in your area is to review information about your local recycling program. This information is available on Earth 911 (using the recycling locator database at the top of this page), some local government websites and the following websites:
E.P.A. Product Stewartship
National Recycling Coalition
E Recycling Central (includes a list of questions to ask recyclers)
Basel Action Network
Computer Take Back Campaign
In addition to “traditional” recycling programs, some electronics manufacturers and retailers also offer e-waste recycling. Many manufacturer-sponsored programs will accept and process their brand for free. Some accept other brands for a small fee.
After determining what options are available, it is important to determine whether a recycler is operating under strict environmental controls and high worker safety protections. A few general questions to ask include:
Is the recycler certified (such as an ISO 14001 environmental management certification) and does it follow a set of industry recognized guidelines?
Does the recycler actually recycle most of the e-waste materials collected (It is best if the company can recycle 90 percent or more of the materials)?
Does the recycler have written procedures for removing and disposing of mercury lamps in electronic products? Many manufacturer and government sponsored programs have extensive online information detailing the way in which recycling is handled.
In addition to choosing a recycler, it is also important to prepare your e-waste for recycling. For computer recycling, one important concern is to erase all data from the computer before sending it off for recycling.
However, this should be a factor regardless of what one does with an old computer because electronic data can be retrieved from hard drives. There are many options (such as software) to ensure that the data is permanently erased.
In fact, many recycling firms will scrub the hard drive and certify that all data has been erased. Before sending your computer to a recycler, check to verify that this option is available.
Manufacturer Specific Programs
Apple
Dell
Hewlett-Packard
Acer
Toshiba Trade-In and Recycling Program
Gateway
Lenovo/IBM (will also accept other e-waste of other computer manufacturers)
Sony
Panasonic
Epson
Retailer Programs
Circuit City (Easy-trade in program)
Best Buy
Staples (accepts computers, monitors, laptops, and desktop printers, faxes and all-in-ones)
EPA Plug-In Partners (lists manufacturers, retailers and service providers that offer recycling of e-waste)
Donation
EPA–lists options for donating or recycling e-waste
Techsoup–lists non-profit organizations and recyclers of e-waste
Goodwill (some locations accept computers)–website includes tips on how to donate computers
Cell Phone Recycling/Donation
Motorola (accepts all brands for free)
Nokia (accepts all brands for free)
Call to Recycle
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (donation of cell phones)
Call to Protect
Verizon Wireless (accepts phones at Verizon stores)
AT&T Wireless (accepts phones at AT&T stores)
T-Mobile Wireless (accepts phones in stores and by mail)
Sprint Wireless (accepts phones in stores and by mail; recycling proceeds go to charity)
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Wireless
HIGH-PITCHED DIGITAL MELODIES and the phrase, “Can you hear me now?” have become mainstream in recent years, thanks to the growing popularity of wireless phones. But while consumers are buying phones equipped with games, text messaging and cameras, the industry has yet to provide for another important demand — an easy disposal system for that outdated phone and a product that is easy to recycle or refurbish.
Next year, Americans are predicted to buy more than 100 million new cell phones and stuff their old phones into closets, drawers and other nooks around the house or office. At that point, the stockpile of out-of-service phones will rise to 500 million units weighing 250,000 tons (about one pound each), according to “Calling All Cell Phones,” a 2003 report by Inform Inc., a New York-based research organization.
“The numbers today are the same as what we found in 2003,” says Eric Most, who authored the Inform report. “At current rates of recovery, hundreds of millions of used cell phones will soon wind up in landfills or incinerators where they'll release arsenic, lead, cadmium and many other toxic materials that threaten human health and the environment,” he says.
Thus, the cell phone industry is scrambling to develop comprehensive disposal alternatives. Cell phone recycling programs are moving in the right direction, Most says, but their scope is dwarfed by the stunning growth of the industry. In 1995, wireless phone carriers supplied service to approximately 34 million subscribers. At the beginning of 2003, there were 141 million cell phone users. According to industry estimates, the average cell phone lasts about 1.5 years. If this estimate is correct, 141 million more phones will require disposal by the end of 2005.
But developing recycling streams for new products takes time. Between 1999 and early 2003, cell phone recycling efforts netted fewer than 5 million phones, about 1 percent of those discarded.
Wireless industry affiliates account for the lion's share of discarded cell phone collection and recycling, according to Inform. Programs include Donate-A-Phone, operated by the Washington, D.C.-based Wireless Foundation, and the Call-To-Protect program, which Verizon Wireless of Bedminster, N.J., operates through its organization HopeLine. AT&T Wireless recently entered the field with a Wireless Reuse & Recycle program.
Additionally, a number of manufacturers and wireless carriers participate in Wireless Foundation programs: Alltel, Cingular, Motorola, Nextel, Rural Cellular Corp. and Sprint. These programs refurbish phones and donate them to charities or resell them to new users. Cell phones that cannot be refurbished are recycled back into the manufacturing process. However, that leaves 495 million cell phones with no place to go but the landfill.
“Bottom line, this is a matter for concern, but not alarm,” says Bruce Parker, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a sub-association of the Environmental Industry Association (EIA). “Every few years, the e-waste stream changes as technology replaces older products. The technical ability to discover toxic and potentially negative aspects of electronic products is still far ahead of the ability to deal with those discoveries in terms of social policies.”
Parker goes on to note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C., currently is working with companies that manufacture electronic products to develop an infrastructure of programs to refurbish and recycle e-waste, including cell phones. Yet he believes the responsibility for dealing with e-waste must ultimately fall on manufacturers and retailers.
“It is an ups
tream responsibility,” Parker says. “We are part of the loop in that we eyeball incoming trash and comply with landfill bans by sending banned materials back. But you can't deal with the problem itself downstream at the landfill.”
The Inform report draws a similar conclusion and recommends a number of steps to help cell phone retailers and manufacturers control the problem.
The recommendations include national advertising campaigns that advise consumers to return their old cell phones to stores and manufacturers, to take advantage of cell phone collection drives, and to donate cell phones to charities that refurbish and redistribute the phones.
Inform also recommends that manufacturers develop more durable plastic components to reduce the number of parts that must be replaced during phone refurbishing. Manufacturers also could standardize cell phone design elements, such as adapters, batteries and accessories, to speed refurbishing and allow more parts to be recycled back into manufacturing. Other recommendations include reducing toxic contaminants in parts, simplifying software reprogramming procedures and color-coding batteries to simplify sorting.
The Inform report also makes four suggestions to public policy makers:
Require consumers to make deposits on cell phone purchases. The promise of a refund would provide an incentive to return used phones for reuse and recycling.
Institute landfill bans on cell phones.
Make manufacturers responsible for managing end-of-life cell phones to create incentives for manufacturers to design products that are easier to refurbish and recycle.
Evaluate the effectiveness of such policies by requiring manufacturers, retailers and recyclers to report on the collection, recycling, refurbishment and eventual end-use of old cell phones.
Efforts to keep cell phones out of landfills may not hold huge selling power among consumers. But if the industry continues to develop technology at its current pace, investing in reusable products could be music to the waste industry's ears.
Next year, Americans are predicted to buy more than 100 million new cell phones and stuff their old phones into closets, drawers and other nooks around the house or office. At that point, the stockpile of out-of-service phones will rise to 500 million units weighing 250,000 tons (about one pound each), according to “Calling All Cell Phones,” a 2003 report by Inform Inc., a New York-based research organization.
“The numbers today are the same as what we found in 2003,” says Eric Most, who authored the Inform report. “At current rates of recovery, hundreds of millions of used cell phones will soon wind up in landfills or incinerators where they'll release arsenic, lead, cadmium and many other toxic materials that threaten human health and the environment,” he says.
Thus, the cell phone industry is scrambling to develop comprehensive disposal alternatives. Cell phone recycling programs are moving in the right direction, Most says, but their scope is dwarfed by the stunning growth of the industry. In 1995, wireless phone carriers supplied service to approximately 34 million subscribers. At the beginning of 2003, there were 141 million cell phone users. According to industry estimates, the average cell phone lasts about 1.5 years. If this estimate is correct, 141 million more phones will require disposal by the end of 2005.
But developing recycling streams for new products takes time. Between 1999 and early 2003, cell phone recycling efforts netted fewer than 5 million phones, about 1 percent of those discarded.
Wireless industry affiliates account for the lion's share of discarded cell phone collection and recycling, according to Inform. Programs include Donate-A-Phone, operated by the Washington, D.C.-based Wireless Foundation, and the Call-To-Protect program, which Verizon Wireless of Bedminster, N.J., operates through its organization HopeLine. AT&T Wireless recently entered the field with a Wireless Reuse & Recycle program.
Additionally, a number of manufacturers and wireless carriers participate in Wireless Foundation programs: Alltel, Cingular, Motorola, Nextel, Rural Cellular Corp. and Sprint. These programs refurbish phones and donate them to charities or resell them to new users. Cell phones that cannot be refurbished are recycled back into the manufacturing process. However, that leaves 495 million cell phones with no place to go but the landfill.
“Bottom line, this is a matter for concern, but not alarm,” says Bruce Parker, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a sub-association of the Environmental Industry Association (EIA). “Every few years, the e-waste stream changes as technology replaces older products. The technical ability to discover toxic and potentially negative aspects of electronic products is still far ahead of the ability to deal with those discoveries in terms of social policies.”
Parker goes on to note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C., currently is working with companies that manufacture electronic products to develop an infrastructure of programs to refurbish and recycle e-waste, including cell phones. Yet he believes the responsibility for dealing with e-waste must ultimately fall on manufacturers and retailers.
“It is an ups
tream responsibility,” Parker says. “We are part of the loop in that we eyeball incoming trash and comply with landfill bans by sending banned materials back. But you can't deal with the problem itself downstream at the landfill.”
The Inform report draws a similar conclusion and recommends a number of steps to help cell phone retailers and manufacturers control the problem.
The recommendations include national advertising campaigns that advise consumers to return their old cell phones to stores and manufacturers, to take advantage of cell phone collection drives, and to donate cell phones to charities that refurbish and redistribute the phones.
Inform also recommends that manufacturers develop more durable plastic components to reduce the number of parts that must be replaced during phone refurbishing. Manufacturers also could standardize cell phone design elements, such as adapters, batteries and accessories, to speed refurbishing and allow more parts to be recycled back into manufacturing. Other recommendations include reducing toxic contaminants in parts, simplifying software reprogramming procedures and color-coding batteries to simplify sorting.
The Inform report also makes four suggestions to public policy makers:
Require consumers to make deposits on cell phone purchases. The promise of a refund would provide an incentive to return used phones for reuse and recycling.
Institute landfill bans on cell phones.
Make manufacturers responsible for managing end-of-life cell phones to create incentives for manufacturers to design products that are easier to refurbish and recycle.
Evaluate the effectiveness of such policies by requiring manufacturers, retailers and recyclers to report on the collection, recycling, refurbishment and eventual end-use of old cell phones.
Efforts to keep cell phones out of landfills may not hold huge selling power among consumers. But if the industry continues to develop technology at its current pace, investing in reusable products could be music to the waste industry's ears.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Digital Trash
AMERICANS WILL THROW OUT more than 12 million tons of electronic equipment next year according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C., estimates. Without programs to recycle this electronic waste (e-waste), the old computers, televisions, cell phones, and other devices made of plastic, metal, glass and toxic chemicals will begin to choke the nation's landfills.
To prevent this problem, the EPA has conducted several electronics recycling (e-cycling) pilot programs in conjunction with local governments and retailers. The lessons learned from these pilots can aid in establishing permanent e-cycling programs nationwide.
The first EPA pilot tested the effectiveness of curbside collection and drop-off e-waste locations in Mid-Atlantic states between Oct. 1, 2001, and Dec. 30, 2002. Pilot participants included the EPA's Philadelphia office; environmental agencies from several states and the District of Columbia; local solid waste departments; electronics manufacturers; electronic recycling companies; and private waste management companies.
The participants shared the e-cycling program's $1.9 million price tag, with the largest share — $1.4 million — falling on state environmental agencies and local governments. “This was the first time we came up with a system of shared financial responsibilities to pay for, collect and deliver recyclable electronics,” says Claudette Reed, a scientist in the waste and chemicals management division of the EPA's Philadelphia office.
By sharing the burden of managing e-cycling programs, the EPA hopes the cost of hosting such programs will be viewed as reasonable by all groups involved.
According to the pilot's final report, the undertaking also yielded five lessons. First, aggressive advertising is critical to the success of an e-cycling program. In the pilot, local governments targeted advertisements at residents using television, newspapers, Web sites, flyers, posters and utility bill stuffers. During the 15-month pilot, the Delaware Solid Waste Authority alone spent $40,000 on advertising.
The pilot also taught the EPA that residents are generally willing to pay small end-of-life fees in the range of $2 to $5 to help pay for e-cycling.
The EPA also learned that permanent collection programs are more cost-effective than single-day collection events.
Additionally, a pilot program can serve as a catalyst for local governments to create permanent e-cycling programs. For example, the success of the pilot led officials in Lebanon County, Pa., to establish a permanent curbside electronics collection program. In Frederick County, Va., a successful drop-off event has led to plans for a series of e-cycling events.
Finally, the pilot confirmed that a high volume of residential and small-business electronic devices is available for collection and recycling.
Another EPA pilot begun in the Pacific Northwest now is operating nationally, thanks to Del Ray Beach, Fla.-based Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) based in Palo Alto, Calif. In this pilot, Office Depot agreed to take back old electronics through its national store network. HP then joined the program to see how it might contribute to current company recycling efforts, which break down old products for reuse.
While results have not yet been reported for this pilot, Katharine Osdoba, product stewardship team leader for the EPA, notes two points of interest. To date, recyclers have not found ways to make e-cycling profitable. If manufacturers can receive the materials directly and reuse them to manufacture new products, the economics may work better, she says. The EPA also is hoping that manufacturers interested in recycled electronic materials will begin working on green product designs to reduce toxic materials and make recycling easier.
In a third pilot, the EPA is exploring whether retailers are practical collection points for e-cycling. The EPA, office product retailer Staples, based in Framingham, Mass., and the nonprofit Product Stewardship Institute operated the program. In this pilot, consumers returned used electronics to Staples, which transported the materials to central warehouses for pickup by recyclers. “Finding ways to move materials to a point where recyclers can pick [them] up in bulk has been a problem,” Osdoba says. “We're waiting for data on the pilot to see whether this approach might work.”
In the meantime, California and Maine have decided not to wait for pilot results and passed legislation governing e-waste. The California legislation mirrors existing state legislation for recycling tires, batteries and other difficult-to-recycle products. In California, consumers purchasing electronics products will pay recycling fees to retailers at the point of purchase. The fees will go to state environmental regulatory agencies, which in turn fund recycling programs and enforcement.
Maine's legislation takes a different tack. It will begin as a traditional state-funded recycling program. However, within a few years, the program will be funded by manufacturers instead of the state. “This is consistent with programs in Europe and Japan,” says Kevin McCarthy, vice president of government affairs with Houston-based Waste Management Inc.
Today, the search for e-waste solutions is just a few years old. It began when the EPA formed the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) in 2001. Members include electronics manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, and state and local governments.
NEPSI aims to develop ways to collect, reuse and recycle used electronics, and to suggest incentives to stimulate source-reduction, reuse, recycle, reduce toxicity and increase recycled content in product design. Additionally, the organization has attempted to discuss financing mechanisms for e-cycling, but this has been a contentious issue.
Nevertheless, NEPSI discussions and pilot programs similar to those conducted by the EPA are characteristic of the development of national regulatory programs, Osdoba says. As groups and pilot programs define options, states will draw on that information to develop legislation. After several states have weighed-in on the issue, the federal government likely will develop national legislation defining minimum e-cycling standards, using the most sensible state programs as a benchmark. With federal legislation in place, states then will be able to enforce or raise the minimum standards to suit their needs, she says.
To prevent this problem, the EPA has conducted several electronics recycling (e-cycling) pilot programs in conjunction with local governments and retailers. The lessons learned from these pilots can aid in establishing permanent e-cycling programs nationwide.
The first EPA pilot tested the effectiveness of curbside collection and drop-off e-waste locations in Mid-Atlantic states between Oct. 1, 2001, and Dec. 30, 2002. Pilot participants included the EPA's Philadelphia office; environmental agencies from several states and the District of Columbia; local solid waste departments; electronics manufacturers; electronic recycling companies; and private waste management companies.
The participants shared the e-cycling program's $1.9 million price tag, with the largest share — $1.4 million — falling on state environmental agencies and local governments. “This was the first time we came up with a system of shared financial responsibilities to pay for, collect and deliver recyclable electronics,” says Claudette Reed, a scientist in the waste and chemicals management division of the EPA's Philadelphia office.
By sharing the burden of managing e-cycling programs, the EPA hopes the cost of hosting such programs will be viewed as reasonable by all groups involved.
According to the pilot's final report, the undertaking also yielded five lessons. First, aggressive advertising is critical to the success of an e-cycling program. In the pilot, local governments targeted advertisements at residents using television, newspapers, Web sites, flyers, posters and utility bill stuffers. During the 15-month pilot, the Delaware Solid Waste Authority alone spent $40,000 on advertising.
The pilot also taught the EPA that residents are generally willing to pay small end-of-life fees in the range of $2 to $5 to help pay for e-cycling.
The EPA also learned that permanent collection programs are more cost-effective than single-day collection events.
Additionally, a pilot program can serve as a catalyst for local governments to create permanent e-cycling programs. For example, the success of the pilot led officials in Lebanon County, Pa., to establish a permanent curbside electronics collection program. In Frederick County, Va., a successful drop-off event has led to plans for a series of e-cycling events.
Finally, the pilot confirmed that a high volume of residential and small-business electronic devices is available for collection and recycling.
Another EPA pilot begun in the Pacific Northwest now is operating nationally, thanks to Del Ray Beach, Fla.-based Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) based in Palo Alto, Calif. In this pilot, Office Depot agreed to take back old electronics through its national store network. HP then joined the program to see how it might contribute to current company recycling efforts, which break down old products for reuse.
While results have not yet been reported for this pilot, Katharine Osdoba, product stewardship team leader for the EPA, notes two points of interest. To date, recyclers have not found ways to make e-cycling profitable. If manufacturers can receive the materials directly and reuse them to manufacture new products, the economics may work better, she says. The EPA also is hoping that manufacturers interested in recycled electronic materials will begin working on green product designs to reduce toxic materials and make recycling easier.
In a third pilot, the EPA is exploring whether retailers are practical collection points for e-cycling. The EPA, office product retailer Staples, based in Framingham, Mass., and the nonprofit Product Stewardship Institute operated the program. In this pilot, consumers returned used electronics to Staples, which transported the materials to central warehouses for pickup by recyclers. “Finding ways to move materials to a point where recyclers can pick [them] up in bulk has been a problem,” Osdoba says. “We're waiting for data on the pilot to see whether this approach might work.”
In the meantime, California and Maine have decided not to wait for pilot results and passed legislation governing e-waste. The California legislation mirrors existing state legislation for recycling tires, batteries and other difficult-to-recycle products. In California, consumers purchasing electronics products will pay recycling fees to retailers at the point of purchase. The fees will go to state environmental regulatory agencies, which in turn fund recycling programs and enforcement.
Maine's legislation takes a different tack. It will begin as a traditional state-funded recycling program. However, within a few years, the program will be funded by manufacturers instead of the state. “This is consistent with programs in Europe and Japan,” says Kevin McCarthy, vice president of government affairs with Houston-based Waste Management Inc.
Today, the search for e-waste solutions is just a few years old. It began when the EPA formed the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) in 2001. Members include electronics manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, and state and local governments.
NEPSI aims to develop ways to collect, reuse and recycle used electronics, and to suggest incentives to stimulate source-reduction, reuse, recycle, reduce toxicity and increase recycled content in product design. Additionally, the organization has attempted to discuss financing mechanisms for e-cycling, but this has been a contentious issue.
Nevertheless, NEPSI discussions and pilot programs similar to those conducted by the EPA are characteristic of the development of national regulatory programs, Osdoba says. As groups and pilot programs define options, states will draw on that information to develop legislation. After several states have weighed-in on the issue, the federal government likely will develop national legislation defining minimum e-cycling standards, using the most sensible state programs as a benchmark. With federal legislation in place, states then will be able to enforce or raise the minimum standards to suit their needs, she says.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Digital TV Box's
According to international research and consulting firm Strategy Analytics (Delafield, Wisconsin), as of the end of 2007, more than 100 million digital television set-top boxes have been sold worldwide in preparation for the February 2009 transition from analog-to-digital broadcasting.
Texas
Austin, Texas — A report by the Texas Campaign for the Environment says that the state of Texas "faces a surge of toxic electronic trash over the next 10 years and taxpayers could be hit with a $606 million cleanup bill," according to The Associated Press (AP). The report says "computers, televisions and many electronics contain toxic materials that should not be buried with municipal garbage in landfills," the AP says.
The report urges state lawmakers to "follow Maine’s lead in forcing manufacturers of monitors, laptops and TVs to take responsibility for safe recycling of equipment bearing their brand names," the AP says
The report urges state lawmakers to "follow Maine’s lead in forcing manufacturers of monitors, laptops and TVs to take responsibility for safe recycling of equipment bearing their brand names," the AP says
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Nationwide recycling
TWO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. House of Representatives are trying, once again, to create a national e-waste recycling system. In early January, Reps. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., introduced the National Computer Recycling Act (H.R. 425).
The bill would direct the Washington-based U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add a fee of up to $10 — to be paid by consumers — on the sales of new computers, monitors and other electronic devices designated by the EPA administrator. The monies would fund EPA grants to local governments, organizations and individuals to carry out computer recycling programs. Manufacturers and retailers that have their own computer recycling programs would be exempt from charging the fee.
If passed, the bill would also require the EPA to study e-waste and develop recommendations for addressing the growing disposal issue.
As technology improves, people are replacing and disposing of their old electronic devices in significant quantities. Roughly 2 million tons of e-waste make their way into landfills each year, according to the EPA. And some environmental groups worry that toxic substances in e-waste could harm human health and the environment. However, solid waste industry members note that there is no evidence that toxic substances leach from e-waste when it is placed in landfills.
Reps. Thompson and Slaughter acknowledged the environmental concerns in introducing the bill. However, the bill has died twice before when it was sent to the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2003 and 2002.
Nevertheless, Thompson has introduced the bill a third time because he believes there is more political momentum for e-waste legislation now, says Matt Gerien, Thompson's press secretary. “E-waste has gained a lot of notice lately in the press,” he says. “We feel like there's a lot more support for the bill right now.”
Chaz Miller, state programs director for the Washington-based National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), is not so sure, and says the chances of the bill passing are “pretty slim.” “With all due respect to the [bill's] authors, they are members of the minority party, and they are not on the committee of jurisdiction,” Miller explains. “If a bill that is similar to this is picked up by a Republican on that committee, then it's going to be taken more seriously politically.” Also, “Congress, for better or worse, has other priorities right now, and they don't see a pressing need to engage this issue.”
NSWMA has yet to take a position on the bill and typically does not do so on legislation until hearings on it are held and debate begins, Miller says. However, the organization supports advance recycling fees or takeback programs to avoid unfunded e-waste recycling mandates, he says.
John Skinner, executive director and CEO of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), Silver Spring, Md., says his organization supports the bill's concept but has questions about how it would be put into practice. For example, SWANA wants to prevent a situation in which a consumer has paid the fee and then, because of how the funds were distributed geographically, does not have a local system that will take back the material. “We feel that needs to be explored further,” he says.
Cash for Computer and TVs
CPU eScrap Cable Phone Metals Top dollar for eScrap eWaste paid
www.ewastedisposal.net
The bill would direct the Washington-based U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add a fee of up to $10 — to be paid by consumers — on the sales of new computers, monitors and other electronic devices designated by the EPA administrator. The monies would fund EPA grants to local governments, organizations and individuals to carry out computer recycling programs. Manufacturers and retailers that have their own computer recycling programs would be exempt from charging the fee.
If passed, the bill would also require the EPA to study e-waste and develop recommendations for addressing the growing disposal issue.
As technology improves, people are replacing and disposing of their old electronic devices in significant quantities. Roughly 2 million tons of e-waste make their way into landfills each year, according to the EPA. And some environmental groups worry that toxic substances in e-waste could harm human health and the environment. However, solid waste industry members note that there is no evidence that toxic substances leach from e-waste when it is placed in landfills.
Reps. Thompson and Slaughter acknowledged the environmental concerns in introducing the bill. However, the bill has died twice before when it was sent to the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2003 and 2002.
Nevertheless, Thompson has introduced the bill a third time because he believes there is more political momentum for e-waste legislation now, says Matt Gerien, Thompson's press secretary. “E-waste has gained a lot of notice lately in the press,” he says. “We feel like there's a lot more support for the bill right now.”
Chaz Miller, state programs director for the Washington-based National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), is not so sure, and says the chances of the bill passing are “pretty slim.” “With all due respect to the [bill's] authors, they are members of the minority party, and they are not on the committee of jurisdiction,” Miller explains. “If a bill that is similar to this is picked up by a Republican on that committee, then it's going to be taken more seriously politically.” Also, “Congress, for better or worse, has other priorities right now, and they don't see a pressing need to engage this issue.”
NSWMA has yet to take a position on the bill and typically does not do so on legislation until hearings on it are held and debate begins, Miller says. However, the organization supports advance recycling fees or takeback programs to avoid unfunded e-waste recycling mandates, he says.
John Skinner, executive director and CEO of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), Silver Spring, Md., says his organization supports the bill's concept but has questions about how it would be put into practice. For example, SWANA wants to prevent a situation in which a consumer has paid the fee and then, because of how the funds were distributed geographically, does not have a local system that will take back the material. “We feel that needs to be explored further,” he says.
Cash for Computer and TVs
CPU eScrap Cable Phone Metals Top dollar for eScrap eWaste paid
www.ewastedisposal.net
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Ku Ikaika Challenge
HONOLULU - (February 14, 2008) - Today's inaugural QuikSilverEdition Ku Ikaika Challenge, presented by C4 Waterman and Red Bull, was a hugely successful celebration of the waterman heritage, epic surf and aloha that have been Hawaii's gifts to the world for centuries. Staged in waves that ranged throughout the day from six to 15 feet (wave face heights of 12-30 feet), the world's first big-wave stand up paddle surfing event was more about gathering together to honor a tradition than it was about winning. The first place winner's check of $4,000, ultimately claimed by revered Hawaiian waterman Aaron Napoleon (Pearl City, Oahu, 41), was presented on his behalf to the West Side Junior Lifeguard Foundation. Every surfer in the main event received an equal prize check of $350.
Napoleon surfed through a total of five rounds to win the all-Hawaiian final, charging hard through every round and posting one of the event's two perfect 10-point rides for a huge barrel. Second place today was 24-year-old Keoni Keaulana (Waianae), who was the top-performing member of the highly represented and respected Keaulana family of Makaha. Third place went to big-wave specialist Ikaika Kalama (Waialua, Oahu), and fourth was Kamu Auwae (Waianae).
Of the field of 32 surfers, 24 were from the Hawaiian Islands, four were from California: Scott Bass, Kyle Mochizuki, Chris Mauro and Chuck Patterson; two were from Tahiti: Raimana Van Bastolaer and Arsene Harehoe; and two were from Australia: Jamie Mitchell and Liam Wilmott. There was also one woman in the event: Maui's Tiare Lawrence.
As the oldest competitor in the final at 41, Napoleon had a well of ocean knowledge to draw from today, both from his own lifetime of experience and as the product of one of Hawaii's best known ocean-going families. A top-performer over the years in every salt-water sport on offer, Napoleon attributed his success to good genes and just wanting to have fun.
"If you could have been out there and seen how the water and the waves looked from where I was, it was so beautiful, man, I was in heaven," said Napoleon. "How you goin' beat one guy (sic) that's having fun?
"It wasn't super big, but it was fun.
"My first heat in the trials I kinda really bonked. I told myself that if I get another chance I'm going for it."
On his perfect 10-scoring, 12-foot wave: "I set it up, pulled in there, had some travel time. I could see the jet-skis in the channel and even though I didn't make it out, when I came up it seemed like the crowd was in awe. To get the respect, I'm on cloud nine."
Chuck Patterson (CA) was a standout charger. Photo: towner@coveredimages.com Chuck Patterson followed an identical path to Napoleon through the event, unfortunately falling one heat short of the glory, but not an ounce short on respect earned. Like Napoleon, he only made it out of the trials by virtue of being one of the highest placed thirds (technically only first and second in each heat were advancing, but a couple of vacancies in the seeded main round allowed a couple of top thirds a second shot).
Where Napoleon capitalized on the biggest, most critical waves and a high, racing line, Patterson opted for large open-faced waves and a top-to-bottom sequence of power carves that totally utilized the paddle.
Like Napoleon, Patterson is also an exponent of multiple sports - kite-surfing, big-wave tow-in surfing, snowboarding and skiing. Stand up paddle surfing is his latest passion.
"I'm addicted!" said Patterson, who runs a construction company and cross-trains young athletes when not pursing his own sporting goals. "This new sport is so exciting. It's as much fun as anything I've ever done and it's the most humbling. It has its glorified moments that leaving you feeling amazing, but then you can turn straight around and fall on a small little bump on the water. It's a humanizing experience - you've just got to get back on your feet and start over. You're always learning and it's never boring."
The vibe on the beach said it all today: no commercial hyp, just an intimate crowd of mostly surf-stoked aunties, uncles and families. There couldn't have been a better venue on the planet than Makaha Beach - for natural beauty or waves. Located near the end of the road on the West Side of Oahu, Makaha has long been a paradise for surfers, playing host to the first world championships of surfing more than 50 years ago. Not much has changed around here in that time, and those things that did have now come full circle, like the old beachboy style of stand up paddle surfing that proved without a doubt today that it's back to stay this time.
Ku Ikaika: "Stand Strong". The name for this event came from the name of the non-profit foundation established last year by supporting sponsor of this event, C4 Waterman. The Ku Ikaika Foundation was established to shine a light on the youth that it encourages to stand strong and make strong, positive choices in life.
Napoleon surfed through a total of five rounds to win the all-Hawaiian final, charging hard through every round and posting one of the event's two perfect 10-point rides for a huge barrel. Second place today was 24-year-old Keoni Keaulana (Waianae), who was the top-performing member of the highly represented and respected Keaulana family of Makaha. Third place went to big-wave specialist Ikaika Kalama (Waialua, Oahu), and fourth was Kamu Auwae (Waianae).
Of the field of 32 surfers, 24 were from the Hawaiian Islands, four were from California: Scott Bass, Kyle Mochizuki, Chris Mauro and Chuck Patterson; two were from Tahiti: Raimana Van Bastolaer and Arsene Harehoe; and two were from Australia: Jamie Mitchell and Liam Wilmott. There was also one woman in the event: Maui's Tiare Lawrence.
As the oldest competitor in the final at 41, Napoleon had a well of ocean knowledge to draw from today, both from his own lifetime of experience and as the product of one of Hawaii's best known ocean-going families. A top-performer over the years in every salt-water sport on offer, Napoleon attributed his success to good genes and just wanting to have fun.
"If you could have been out there and seen how the water and the waves looked from where I was, it was so beautiful, man, I was in heaven," said Napoleon. "How you goin' beat one guy (sic) that's having fun?
"It wasn't super big, but it was fun.
"My first heat in the trials I kinda really bonked. I told myself that if I get another chance I'm going for it."
On his perfect 10-scoring, 12-foot wave: "I set it up, pulled in there, had some travel time. I could see the jet-skis in the channel and even though I didn't make it out, when I came up it seemed like the crowd was in awe. To get the respect, I'm on cloud nine."
Chuck Patterson (CA) was a standout charger. Photo: towner@coveredimages.com Chuck Patterson followed an identical path to Napoleon through the event, unfortunately falling one heat short of the glory, but not an ounce short on respect earned. Like Napoleon, he only made it out of the trials by virtue of being one of the highest placed thirds (technically only first and second in each heat were advancing, but a couple of vacancies in the seeded main round allowed a couple of top thirds a second shot).
Where Napoleon capitalized on the biggest, most critical waves and a high, racing line, Patterson opted for large open-faced waves and a top-to-bottom sequence of power carves that totally utilized the paddle.
Like Napoleon, Patterson is also an exponent of multiple sports - kite-surfing, big-wave tow-in surfing, snowboarding and skiing. Stand up paddle surfing is his latest passion.
"I'm addicted!" said Patterson, who runs a construction company and cross-trains young athletes when not pursing his own sporting goals. "This new sport is so exciting. It's as much fun as anything I've ever done and it's the most humbling. It has its glorified moments that leaving you feeling amazing, but then you can turn straight around and fall on a small little bump on the water. It's a humanizing experience - you've just got to get back on your feet and start over. You're always learning and it's never boring."
The vibe on the beach said it all today: no commercial hyp, just an intimate crowd of mostly surf-stoked aunties, uncles and families. There couldn't have been a better venue on the planet than Makaha Beach - for natural beauty or waves. Located near the end of the road on the West Side of Oahu, Makaha has long been a paradise for surfers, playing host to the first world championships of surfing more than 50 years ago. Not much has changed around here in that time, and those things that did have now come full circle, like the old beachboy style of stand up paddle surfing that proved without a doubt today that it's back to stay this time.
Ku Ikaika: "Stand Strong". The name for this event came from the name of the non-profit foundation established last year by supporting sponsor of this event, C4 Waterman. The Ku Ikaika Foundation was established to shine a light on the youth that it encourages to stand strong and make strong, positive choices in life.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Digital TV going away 1 year from today!
On February 17, 2009, analog television signals—the mode of TV delivery since the 1940s—will be completely replaced by digital. Here are the basics behind this monumental change, and what it means for TV viewers.
Simply put, a digital signal is an improvement over analog. Analog signals are susceptible to interference or "noise." Digital signals are more efficient, providing better picture and sound, and the opportunity to broadcast multiple content streams.
How dramatic is the digital transition? Eighteen broadcast channels—52 through 69 on the UHF band—will no longer exist. Since digital delivery frees up space, TV broadcasts along those frequencies will be discontinued. Roughly 145 stations in the US currently use those channels, and nearly all will continue on digital channels.The newly available space won't stay empty for long. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has begun accepting auction bids on five portions of the 700 MHz frequency (don't bother unless you have a couple billion dollars). Additionally, a small section, 20 MHz in size, has been set aside for public safety communications.
What will it mean to you when stations and providers cease analog signals in February 2009? That depends on the equipment you useto watch television.There's no need to do anything if:
You subscribe to digital cable TV
You subscribe to satellite TV programming, like DirecTV or DISH Network
You receive over-the-air TV signals with an antenna and digital TV, or antenna and digital tuner
You'll want to take action if:
You have an analog TV and receive signals via antenna. In this case, you'll need to purchase a converter box to watch digital programming The good news: The government is offering converter box coupons worth $40 each.
To learn more and see if you're eligible, visit the TV Converter Box Coupon Program website.
Simple facts about digital TVs:
Any TV shipped after March 1, 2007 must include a digital receiver
There may be some new televisions shipped before March 1 that don't include a digital receiver. In that case, the box must have a sticker explicitly saying so
TVs without digital tuners aren't necessarily "old." For instance, some HDTV models from 2006 are "digital ready"—they'll display digital signals, but only when connected to digital cable or a digital receiver. For these, you may see phrases like "digital monitor" or "HDTV monitor" on the box
Our advice: Read carefully and ask questions if you're not sure. Check your TV manual. Call your cable service. Many of you already watch digital television. For you, our advice is simple: Enjoy.
Bose has a variety of home theater audio options to complement your digital TV. From innovative two-speaker setups to premium 5.1-channel surround sound systems, Bose brings more to your home entertainment experience.See home theater systems on Bose.com »
Simply put, a digital signal is an improvement over analog. Analog signals are susceptible to interference or "noise." Digital signals are more efficient, providing better picture and sound, and the opportunity to broadcast multiple content streams.
How dramatic is the digital transition? Eighteen broadcast channels—52 through 69 on the UHF band—will no longer exist. Since digital delivery frees up space, TV broadcasts along those frequencies will be discontinued. Roughly 145 stations in the US currently use those channels, and nearly all will continue on digital channels.The newly available space won't stay empty for long. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has begun accepting auction bids on five portions of the 700 MHz frequency (don't bother unless you have a couple billion dollars). Additionally, a small section, 20 MHz in size, has been set aside for public safety communications.
What will it mean to you when stations and providers cease analog signals in February 2009? That depends on the equipment you useto watch television.There's no need to do anything if:
You subscribe to digital cable TV
You subscribe to satellite TV programming, like DirecTV or DISH Network
You receive over-the-air TV signals with an antenna and digital TV, or antenna and digital tuner
You'll want to take action if:
You have an analog TV and receive signals via antenna. In this case, you'll need to purchase a converter box to watch digital programming The good news: The government is offering converter box coupons worth $40 each.
To learn more and see if you're eligible, visit the TV Converter Box Coupon Program website.
Simple facts about digital TVs:
Any TV shipped after March 1, 2007 must include a digital receiver
There may be some new televisions shipped before March 1 that don't include a digital receiver. In that case, the box must have a sticker explicitly saying so
TVs without digital tuners aren't necessarily "old." For instance, some HDTV models from 2006 are "digital ready"—they'll display digital signals, but only when connected to digital cable or a digital receiver. For these, you may see phrases like "digital monitor" or "HDTV monitor" on the box
Our advice: Read carefully and ask questions if you're not sure. Check your TV manual. Call your cable service. Many of you already watch digital television. For you, our advice is simple: Enjoy.
Bose has a variety of home theater audio options to complement your digital TV. From innovative two-speaker setups to premium 5.1-channel surround sound systems, Bose brings more to your home entertainment experience.See home theater systems on Bose.com »
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Waste Management
Waste managers want to combine software systems to automate tasks, increase productivity and overcome problems.
As a scale supervisor for transfer stations operated by Helena, Mont., Kathy Goroski wants a single software application that will handle scale transactions, collections and routing. For years, she's had no luck.
Why, she asks, isn't there a software application that automates all of the information tasks associated with a solid waste management operation — from collection through disposal? Today, her vendors are working out the final details of an integration project that will automate many of those tasks by enabling different software systems to talk to each other.
Waste operation managers across the country are demanding a connection of systems to automate expensive, time-consuming manual tasks. They want the various software applications at work in their organizations to combine forces, swap data and solve costly productivity problems.
Integration in Helena
In Helena, Kathy Goroski's transfer station scales process solid waste for 60,000 residential, commercial and roll-off customers. For years, the facility has used Wilmington, N.C.-based Carolina Software Inc.'s WasteWORKS to automate and record scale house transactions.
Not long ago, the city purchased RAMS-Pro, an application developed by Alpine Technology Corp., Colorado Springs, Colo., to handle route management, billing and other administrative functions. The product provides an automated route manager that re-balances service routes. It also smoothes the wrinkles that solid waste billing systems confront, such as managing letters to customers and handling spreadsheets that tabulate sales quotes.
The system also integrates related tasks. If, for example, a receptionist transfers a phone call to customer service, the account automatically appears on the representative's screen. In addition, the program checks container inventories and generates work orders to have containers delivered. But the system doesn't have scale-house capabilities, Goroski says.
“One day Kathy asked me: ‘Can RAMS-Pro talk to WasteWORKS?’” recalls Jon Leeds, a vice president of Carolina Software. “We talked with Alpine and discovered that we had similar philosophies about data integration and decided we could make it work for Helena.”
Leeds says local governments, haulers and disposal facilities would all benefit from considering how they would like to manipulate information and then working to create partnerships between suppliers rather than purchasing packages and discovering that the two systems can't be made to talk to each other.
While Goroski awaits the integrated software, she is making plans to mine and organize data in ways not possible without the integration. For instance, she wants to evaluate the city's solid waste programs and pricing. Helena residents pay $161 per year for solid waste services, entitling them to once-a-week pickup of a 90-gallon container (additional containers are covered under a pay-as-you-throw program), bulk waste pick-ups and a permit to self-haul two tons of solid waste to the landfill.
“In the past, we have not been able to track how many residents use the bulk-hauling service and the landfill permit,” Goroski says. With the software integration, “I'll be able to track tonnage brought in on permit and bulk orders and determine how often customers use those services.”
“It's possible that a large percentage of our residents use just the weekly collection and never call the bulk truck or use the landfill permit,” she adds. “If that's true, it might be possible to lower residential rates by $40 per year by doing away with the landfill permits. If just a few people use the permits and bulk pick-ups, then we shouldn't charge everyone for those services.”
The integration also will enhance billing services for commercial, roll-off and landfill customers alike. Right now, the city's Solid Waste Department piggybacks on the city's water bills, a system that has worked poorly. Property owners traditionally pay water bills, while tenants pay for waste collection, so the city is, in some cases, sending bills to the wrong person, Goroski notes.
In addition, since there is no room to provide service details, the city can't justify fees on the invoices. As a result, customers call and ask for details. Roll-off customers, for instance, want to know the daily charge, the number of hauls and the tonnage. “We have the details, but we can't put them on the bills,” Goroski says. “So, someone has to take the time to look up the information and provide it to customers.”
The new system will provide two-sided paper bills with details about both collection and transfer station services made possible by the integration. After the integration, Helena also will provide customers with online billing services.
Efficiency in Sacramento Co.
In Sacramento County, Calif., a private contractor processes the county's single-stream recycling collections. The county wants a weekly report from the contractor summarizing the tonnages collected. Up until last year, the contractor exported the data to an Excel file using its own scale-house software. Then, county personnel entered the data by hand into the county's WasteWORKS scale-house software.
Now, the two systems communicate to automatically enter the information into the county's program, says Doug Kobold, program manager for the county's Department of Waste Management and Recycling.
Kobold is planning another system integration. On the collection side, the county uses Routesmart from Columbia, Md.-based Routesmart Technologies Inc. to optimize routes. “It would be great to use information from the scale-house system to give [the routing system] a way to balance routes based on tonnage as well as on a map,” he says.
Kobold also has a small consulting business and is working with a hauling company that wants two of its systems to talk to each other about the commercial and roll-off sides of the business. One system is a routing software package with a billing component. When a truck makes a pick-up, the pick-up is entered in the billing module as a transaction. The second system is the scale-house system that tracks tonnage at disposal sites.
Sometimes, the billing module in the routing system needs tonnage information from the scale-house system to complete its billing work. For example, roll-offs that dispose of more than four tons generate an extra charge. Right now, tonnage data for disposal transactions must be keyed into the routing system.
Kobold's plan is to set up both the routing system and the scale-house system to export relevant data, which a spreadsheet can then combine and make available to the billing system as needed. “Another goal is to get the reporting to a level acceptable to regulators,” Kobold says. “This will require procedures that will send certain tonnage information to one system for reporting purposes and certain tonnage information to the billing system. Tonnages used by the billing system, however, will not be used for reporting.”
Automating Analyses
Last year, Hillsboro Garbage Disposal Inc. in Hillsboro, Ore., converted to PC Scales' Tower 6.0 routing, billing and accounting software. One of the first projects Information Technology Director Jason Barnes set for himself was to use the system's reporting capability to evaluate route profitability. However, the only way to get relevant real time route data from another system into the software was to enter it by hand. “We didn't want to get caught up in mass data entry that can occur when using incompatible software applications,” Barnes says.
So, Barnes integrated Tower 6.0 with the Routeware Back Office software, which works in conjunction with Routeware's on-board computer system. “The on-boards give us the actual time of service we need to evaluate route profitability and efficiency,” he says. “Additionally, we can analyze profitability at the individual customer level using drive time to location, time spent servicing containers and time spent traveling to the next customer.”
The integration has made it possible for data to move back and forth between the two systems. As a result, Hillsboro can view the data using reporting features from either application. “This eliminates the need to manually import and export data between the two applications,” Barnes says.
Helena's Goroski probably won't get her wish of one all-encompassing solid waste software capable of operating on an enterprise level. The market seems too small to support such an undertaking. Still, vendors across the industry are talking to customers about integrating their products with others. To facilitate those integrations, many software application packages are becoming less proprietary and more capable of combining forces.
Michael Fickes is a Westminster, Md.-based contributing writer.
As a scale supervisor for transfer stations operated by Helena, Mont., Kathy Goroski wants a single software application that will handle scale transactions, collections and routing. For years, she's had no luck.
Why, she asks, isn't there a software application that automates all of the information tasks associated with a solid waste management operation — from collection through disposal? Today, her vendors are working out the final details of an integration project that will automate many of those tasks by enabling different software systems to talk to each other.
Waste operation managers across the country are demanding a connection of systems to automate expensive, time-consuming manual tasks. They want the various software applications at work in their organizations to combine forces, swap data and solve costly productivity problems.
Integration in Helena
In Helena, Kathy Goroski's transfer station scales process solid waste for 60,000 residential, commercial and roll-off customers. For years, the facility has used Wilmington, N.C.-based Carolina Software Inc.'s WasteWORKS to automate and record scale house transactions.
Not long ago, the city purchased RAMS-Pro, an application developed by Alpine Technology Corp., Colorado Springs, Colo., to handle route management, billing and other administrative functions. The product provides an automated route manager that re-balances service routes. It also smoothes the wrinkles that solid waste billing systems confront, such as managing letters to customers and handling spreadsheets that tabulate sales quotes.
The system also integrates related tasks. If, for example, a receptionist transfers a phone call to customer service, the account automatically appears on the representative's screen. In addition, the program checks container inventories and generates work orders to have containers delivered. But the system doesn't have scale-house capabilities, Goroski says.
“One day Kathy asked me: ‘Can RAMS-Pro talk to WasteWORKS?’” recalls Jon Leeds, a vice president of Carolina Software. “We talked with Alpine and discovered that we had similar philosophies about data integration and decided we could make it work for Helena.”
Leeds says local governments, haulers and disposal facilities would all benefit from considering how they would like to manipulate information and then working to create partnerships between suppliers rather than purchasing packages and discovering that the two systems can't be made to talk to each other.
While Goroski awaits the integrated software, she is making plans to mine and organize data in ways not possible without the integration. For instance, she wants to evaluate the city's solid waste programs and pricing. Helena residents pay $161 per year for solid waste services, entitling them to once-a-week pickup of a 90-gallon container (additional containers are covered under a pay-as-you-throw program), bulk waste pick-ups and a permit to self-haul two tons of solid waste to the landfill.
“In the past, we have not been able to track how many residents use the bulk-hauling service and the landfill permit,” Goroski says. With the software integration, “I'll be able to track tonnage brought in on permit and bulk orders and determine how often customers use those services.”
“It's possible that a large percentage of our residents use just the weekly collection and never call the bulk truck or use the landfill permit,” she adds. “If that's true, it might be possible to lower residential rates by $40 per year by doing away with the landfill permits. If just a few people use the permits and bulk pick-ups, then we shouldn't charge everyone for those services.”
The integration also will enhance billing services for commercial, roll-off and landfill customers alike. Right now, the city's Solid Waste Department piggybacks on the city's water bills, a system that has worked poorly. Property owners traditionally pay water bills, while tenants pay for waste collection, so the city is, in some cases, sending bills to the wrong person, Goroski notes.
In addition, since there is no room to provide service details, the city can't justify fees on the invoices. As a result, customers call and ask for details. Roll-off customers, for instance, want to know the daily charge, the number of hauls and the tonnage. “We have the details, but we can't put them on the bills,” Goroski says. “So, someone has to take the time to look up the information and provide it to customers.”
The new system will provide two-sided paper bills with details about both collection and transfer station services made possible by the integration. After the integration, Helena also will provide customers with online billing services.
Efficiency in Sacramento Co.
In Sacramento County, Calif., a private contractor processes the county's single-stream recycling collections. The county wants a weekly report from the contractor summarizing the tonnages collected. Up until last year, the contractor exported the data to an Excel file using its own scale-house software. Then, county personnel entered the data by hand into the county's WasteWORKS scale-house software.
Now, the two systems communicate to automatically enter the information into the county's program, says Doug Kobold, program manager for the county's Department of Waste Management and Recycling.
Kobold is planning another system integration. On the collection side, the county uses Routesmart from Columbia, Md.-based Routesmart Technologies Inc. to optimize routes. “It would be great to use information from the scale-house system to give [the routing system] a way to balance routes based on tonnage as well as on a map,” he says.
Kobold also has a small consulting business and is working with a hauling company that wants two of its systems to talk to each other about the commercial and roll-off sides of the business. One system is a routing software package with a billing component. When a truck makes a pick-up, the pick-up is entered in the billing module as a transaction. The second system is the scale-house system that tracks tonnage at disposal sites.
Sometimes, the billing module in the routing system needs tonnage information from the scale-house system to complete its billing work. For example, roll-offs that dispose of more than four tons generate an extra charge. Right now, tonnage data for disposal transactions must be keyed into the routing system.
Kobold's plan is to set up both the routing system and the scale-house system to export relevant data, which a spreadsheet can then combine and make available to the billing system as needed. “Another goal is to get the reporting to a level acceptable to regulators,” Kobold says. “This will require procedures that will send certain tonnage information to one system for reporting purposes and certain tonnage information to the billing system. Tonnages used by the billing system, however, will not be used for reporting.”
Automating Analyses
Last year, Hillsboro Garbage Disposal Inc. in Hillsboro, Ore., converted to PC Scales' Tower 6.0 routing, billing and accounting software. One of the first projects Information Technology Director Jason Barnes set for himself was to use the system's reporting capability to evaluate route profitability. However, the only way to get relevant real time route data from another system into the software was to enter it by hand. “We didn't want to get caught up in mass data entry that can occur when using incompatible software applications,” Barnes says.
So, Barnes integrated Tower 6.0 with the Routeware Back Office software, which works in conjunction with Routeware's on-board computer system. “The on-boards give us the actual time of service we need to evaluate route profitability and efficiency,” he says. “Additionally, we can analyze profitability at the individual customer level using drive time to location, time spent servicing containers and time spent traveling to the next customer.”
The integration has made it possible for data to move back and forth between the two systems. As a result, Hillsboro can view the data using reporting features from either application. “This eliminates the need to manually import and export data between the two applications,” Barnes says.
Helena's Goroski probably won't get her wish of one all-encompassing solid waste software capable of operating on an enterprise level. The market seems too small to support such an undertaking. Still, vendors across the industry are talking to customers about integrating their products with others. To facilitate those integrations, many software application packages are becoming less proprietary and more capable of combining forces.
Michael Fickes is a Westminster, Md.-based contributing writer.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
E Bay and E Waste
TO KEEP DISCARDED COMPUTERS and other electronic products out of the nation's landfills, San Jose, Calif.-based eBay Inc. and a group of computer, governmental and environmental organizations have launched an e-recycling campaign. Called the Rethink Initiative, the project seeks to promote e-recycling awareness and to facilitate the safe disposal of electronic devices.
The focal point of the campaign is an eBay-run Web site (www.ebay.com/rethink) that educates consumers about e-waste. Consumers can use the site to find an e-recycler located near them and to review a checklist of questions to consider when selecting a recycler.
To prepare computers for recycling, the site provides a program that erases hard-drive data.
The Rethink Initiative also encourages consumers to resell their unwanted electronic devices or donate them to a charity. The program's Web site contains information on how to do both.
The initiative comes at a time when Americans are disposing of electronic devices in significant quantities. While unused electronic devices are often left in garages, closets or storage rooms, roughly 2 million tons of e-waste makes its way into landfills each year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington. Electronic devices often contain toxic substances such as lead and mercury, and environmental groups argue that it is dangerous to place them in landfills. Some states, such as California and Maine, have banned cathode ray tubes from landfills.
Chaz Miller, state programs director for the Washington-based Environmental Industry Associations, says there is no evidence that toxic substances leach from e-waste when placed in landfills. Still, he applauds the Rethink Initiative, calling it a “creative attempt” to remove electronics from the waste stream. “It's a great idea,” he says. “Let's see how it works.”
Other members of the Rethink Initiative are Intel Corp., Santa Clara, Calif.; Apple, Cupertino, Calif.; Gateway, Irvine, Calif.; Hewlett-Packard Co. Palo Alto, Calif.; and IBM Corp., White Plains, N.Y. The EPA is a participant as well. A complete list of the members also is available on the project's Web site.
The Rethink Initiative launch is not the only e-recycling news to emerge in recent weeks. The EPA's Plug In to eCycling Program has announced the results of four pilot projects held last year to test the viability of collecting used electronics in retail settings. The EPA provided technical services for the pilots.
In one month-long test, 115,000 pounds of used electronics were collected for recycling by Staples stores throughout New England. Another month-long pilot in the Pacific Northwest captured 197,000 pounds of televisions at Good Guys electronic stores. In a series of day-long collection events in Minnesota and Wisconsin held last summer and fall, 357,500 pounds of electronics were collected, primarily at Best Buy and Target stores. In the fourth project, Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard operated a more-than-two-month program that gathered more than 10.5 million pounds of electronics at Office Depots nationwide.
“The programs were successful,” says Dave Deegan, EPA spokesman. The agency is evaluating the pilot results to help outline future projects, he says.
The EPA also recently awarded eight contracts to small businesses to provide e-recycling and disposal services for federal agencies and buildings throughout the nation. Traditionally, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has handled the disposition of used federal electronics, says Oliver Voss, a service center manager for the EPA's Office of Acquisition Management.
Agencies will still be able to use GSA to get rid of old equipment. However, unlike the GSA, the EPA's contracted firms will provide an audit trail to show where the equipment ends up, Voss says.
The focal point of the campaign is an eBay-run Web site (www.ebay.com/rethink) that educates consumers about e-waste. Consumers can use the site to find an e-recycler located near them and to review a checklist of questions to consider when selecting a recycler.
To prepare computers for recycling, the site provides a program that erases hard-drive data.
The Rethink Initiative also encourages consumers to resell their unwanted electronic devices or donate them to a charity. The program's Web site contains information on how to do both.
The initiative comes at a time when Americans are disposing of electronic devices in significant quantities. While unused electronic devices are often left in garages, closets or storage rooms, roughly 2 million tons of e-waste makes its way into landfills each year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington. Electronic devices often contain toxic substances such as lead and mercury, and environmental groups argue that it is dangerous to place them in landfills. Some states, such as California and Maine, have banned cathode ray tubes from landfills.
Chaz Miller, state programs director for the Washington-based Environmental Industry Associations, says there is no evidence that toxic substances leach from e-waste when placed in landfills. Still, he applauds the Rethink Initiative, calling it a “creative attempt” to remove electronics from the waste stream. “It's a great idea,” he says. “Let's see how it works.”
Other members of the Rethink Initiative are Intel Corp., Santa Clara, Calif.; Apple, Cupertino, Calif.; Gateway, Irvine, Calif.; Hewlett-Packard Co. Palo Alto, Calif.; and IBM Corp., White Plains, N.Y. The EPA is a participant as well. A complete list of the members also is available on the project's Web site.
The Rethink Initiative launch is not the only e-recycling news to emerge in recent weeks. The EPA's Plug In to eCycling Program has announced the results of four pilot projects held last year to test the viability of collecting used electronics in retail settings. The EPA provided technical services for the pilots.
In one month-long test, 115,000 pounds of used electronics were collected for recycling by Staples stores throughout New England. Another month-long pilot in the Pacific Northwest captured 197,000 pounds of televisions at Good Guys electronic stores. In a series of day-long collection events in Minnesota and Wisconsin held last summer and fall, 357,500 pounds of electronics were collected, primarily at Best Buy and Target stores. In the fourth project, Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard operated a more-than-two-month program that gathered more than 10.5 million pounds of electronics at Office Depots nationwide.
“The programs were successful,” says Dave Deegan, EPA spokesman. The agency is evaluating the pilot results to help outline future projects, he says.
The EPA also recently awarded eight contracts to small businesses to provide e-recycling and disposal services for federal agencies and buildings throughout the nation. Traditionally, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has handled the disposition of used federal electronics, says Oliver Voss, a service center manager for the EPA's Office of Acquisition Management.
Agencies will still be able to use GSA to get rid of old equipment. However, unlike the GSA, the EPA's contracted firms will provide an audit trail to show where the equipment ends up, Voss says.
Friday, February 15, 2008
News Bits
A dramatic robbery in California resulted in the loss of a delivery truck hauling e-scrap. On February 5th, masked gunmen in two vehicles forced the truck off the road on a stretch of Highway 17, north of Santa Cruz. The driver was then beaten, bound with duct tape and thrown in the back of his truck, while thieves made off with his cargo.
The local Sheriff's Office is not releasing details on the cargo, or the company that owns it … The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington) revised specifications for televisions under its Energy Star efficiency labeling program.
The Version 3.0 Energy Star TV products specification labeled televisions will be up to 30-percent more efficient than standard televisions, and will save energy while both on or off …
The EPA is also holding an EPEAT scoping meeting on April 21st to develop environmental standards for televisions. More information is available online …
The National Center for Electronics Recycling (Davisville, West Virginia) has released updated analysis of Maine's electronics law for the first half of 2007, with orphan brands making up 4.5-percent of total returns.
The local Sheriff's Office is not releasing details on the cargo, or the company that owns it … The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington) revised specifications for televisions under its Energy Star efficiency labeling program.
The Version 3.0 Energy Star TV products specification labeled televisions will be up to 30-percent more efficient than standard televisions, and will save energy while both on or off …
The EPA is also holding an EPEAT scoping meeting on April 21st to develop environmental standards for televisions. More information is available online …
The National Center for Electronics Recycling (Davisville, West Virginia) has released updated analysis of Maine's electronics law for the first half of 2007, with orphan brands making up 4.5-percent of total returns.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Biodiesel
THE SUBJECT OF BIODIESEL AND LOWER SULFER REGS WERE BEING TALKED ABOUT FOR SEVERAL YEARS. A FEW YEARS AGO WE PURCHASED A NEW DIESEL GENERATOR FOR OUR PLANT. BEFORE IT WAS PURCHASED, THE QUESTION WAS ASKED IF THIS GEN WOULD RUN ON THE LOW SULFER DIESEL BEING REQUIRED OR THE BIODIESEL BEING PROPOSED.
THE ENGINEER SAID IT WOULD, BUT THE OFFROAD ENGINES WOULDN’T HAVE TO RUN ON IT. AS OF DEC, 2007 OFFROAD DIESELS MUST NOW RUN ON THE LOW SULFER HIGHWAY FUEL. A CALL WAS PLACED TO THE MANUFACTURER, AND THEY SAID THE DIESEL WILL RUN FINE ON THE LOW SULFER DIESEL AND UP TO 5% BIODIESEL. ANOTHER TRUCKING OUTFIT SAYS THEY ARE PUTTING AN ADDITIVE IN THEIR TRUCKS THAT CAN’T RUN ON LOW SULFER FUEL.
IF THE REGS GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY FORCE HIGHER BIODIESEL USE, WILL THERE BE AN ADDITIVE TO ALLOW THE OFFROAD DIESELS TO RUN, OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO RETROFITTED , AND WHAT WOULD THAT BE?
It is always the best approach to speak to the manufacturer of the equipment if using fuels that do not comply to the original reccommendations.
Sulfur is a natural lubricant, and reducing the sulfur in fuel can create issue on some older equipment, however if you use a high quality fuel, not the cheapest you can find, it will have suplementary wear additives to compensate for the reduced sulfur.
Bio fuel is another matter all together, and studies are being conducted to establish the effects of using bio fuel with mixed results, however one thing is clear, if using bio fuel ensure it is of a consistant quality, and from a reputable source, as damage from poor fuel can be expensive and irreversible.
Again it is worth checking with the manufacturer of your equipment, but it appears that B5 (5% bio in diesel) can be used on most equipment.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Pacific Swell on the way
Pacific Wide Swell Alert from Surfline, effective Tuesday, February 12, 2008.High Pressure hanging over the West Coast has left an open corridor for strong storm activity in the Central Pacific.
We have a large storm now brewing up solid and significant swell that will be headed into North Shores of HI later this week and then track its way to the West Coast by the weekend. Even better, with the High pressure in place, that means conditions will be generally pleasant during much of this run of waves.
Make sure to CHECK THE SURFLINE FORECASTS to get all the latest details.
We have a large storm now brewing up solid and significant swell that will be headed into North Shores of HI later this week and then track its way to the West Coast by the weekend. Even better, with the High pressure in place, that means conditions will be generally pleasant during much of this run of waves.
Make sure to CHECK THE SURFLINE FORECASTS to get all the latest details.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Plug In Recycling
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, recognized the collaborative efforts of its Plug-In to e-Cycling partners for recycling more than 60 million pounds of electronic waste during the past three years.
The 21 Plug-In partners, who include electronic manufacturers and other businesses, were recognized at the annual International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 7.
The Plug-In program, which was launched in January 2003, aims to promote and increase e-waste recycling efforts and provide businesses and consumers with more take back opportunities.
The 21 Plug-In partners, who include electronic manufacturers and other businesses, were recognized at the annual International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 7.
The Plug-In program, which was launched in January 2003, aims to promote and increase e-waste recycling efforts and provide businesses and consumers with more take back opportunities.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Jamaican Cane and Enviromental Farming
Jamaica sugar estate tries harvesting cane without burning to boost yield, qualityJamaica sugar estate tries harvesting cane with environment in mind
Monday, February 11, 2008
KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) — A Jamaican sugar estate has started harvesting green cane to improve the quality of the crop and cut environmental damage from the old practice of burning fields during harvest, a government statement said Sunday.
Roughly 100 cutters at the government-run Frome Sugar Factory in rural Westmoreland parish are now reaping fresh, green cane instead of the traditional burned cane. Under the old system, farmers burned cut cane lying in the fields to destroy the sugarless leaves and to fertilize the soil with ash.
But there now is increased global demand for green cane, which costs the Sugar Company of Jamaica less energy to process and stays fresher longer. Environmentally, there is no air pollution from burning and less need for chemicals to kill weeds that sprout in the burned fields.
"Within three to four days, the burned cane starts to spoil," said Lucius Jackson, a Westmoreland farmer who provides cane to the factory. "The green cane will last up to six days, and the juice stands up just the same."
The European Union, the chief market for Jamaica' struggling sugar industry, has called for all imports to be derived from green cane by 2010, said Aston Smith, vice president of operations for the Frome plant.
Jamaica's state-owned sugar company has been squeezed by deep cuts in EU subsidies for producers in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific and will be privatized later this year after years of amassing debt.
In 2005, the Jamaican government announced a plan to restructure the sugar industry to focus production more on ethanol and molasses. But the majority of Jamaica's cane harvest still is used to produce sugar.
Monday, February 11, 2008
KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) — A Jamaican sugar estate has started harvesting green cane to improve the quality of the crop and cut environmental damage from the old practice of burning fields during harvest, a government statement said Sunday.
Roughly 100 cutters at the government-run Frome Sugar Factory in rural Westmoreland parish are now reaping fresh, green cane instead of the traditional burned cane. Under the old system, farmers burned cut cane lying in the fields to destroy the sugarless leaves and to fertilize the soil with ash.
But there now is increased global demand for green cane, which costs the Sugar Company of Jamaica less energy to process and stays fresher longer. Environmentally, there is no air pollution from burning and less need for chemicals to kill weeds that sprout in the burned fields.
"Within three to four days, the burned cane starts to spoil," said Lucius Jackson, a Westmoreland farmer who provides cane to the factory. "The green cane will last up to six days, and the juice stands up just the same."
The European Union, the chief market for Jamaica' struggling sugar industry, has called for all imports to be derived from green cane by 2010, said Aston Smith, vice president of operations for the Frome plant.
Jamaica's state-owned sugar company has been squeezed by deep cuts in EU subsidies for producers in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific and will be privatized later this year after years of amassing debt.
In 2005, the Jamaican government announced a plan to restructure the sugar industry to focus production more on ethanol and molasses. But the majority of Jamaica's cane harvest still is used to produce sugar.
Toll Road
By: Kyle Moreno
February 6, 2008
It's been a week for the record books. Super Bowl Sunday rolled into Super Tuesday and finally, Big Wednesday. Anticipating a super-sized turnout at the mid-week critical toll road hearing, the California Coastal Commission traded in the usual Oceanside City Council Chamber for a XXL lot at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Good idea. People came out in droves. At the highest point, an estimated 2,500 Save Trestles supporters swarmed in and around the centrally located Wyland Hall, flanked with slogan-riddled t-shirts and rally signs.
"It's great to see," said former world champ Pete Townend, who mingled with the crowd. "These are the real people who recognize San Onfore State Park's true value in their lives, not a bunch of paid sign holders in orange shirts who look like they've never seen the beach."
Townend was referring the significantly smaller showing of road workers who supported the 241-extension.Current WCT Pro CJ Hobgood echoed similar sentiments: "I'm really honored to be a part of the surfing family. Now, just waiting to see if this nuts presence will yield some results."It did. Just after 11pm Pacific Time, after 14 hours of presentations from members of Save Trestles campaign, the TCA, and personal testimonies from public, the Commission voted 8 - 2 against the proposed 241 Toll Road extension, stating its inconsistency with the California Coastal Act.The packed-house erupted in cheers."Huge," said Carlsbad's Taylor Knox after the decision. "This was such a huge victory towards saving something that, once it's taken away from us, can never be put back."
"This was such a huge victory towards saving something that, once it's taken away from us, can never be put back."
--Taylor KnoxSanta Monica's Graham Hamilton drew cheers earlier in the night when he used his public testimony to reject suggestions that the surfers simply want to guard their local territory from inlanders: "My opposition would be just as sharp if it crossed Yosemite or bisected Joshua Tree. The idea of building a toll road through a state park is not only ludicrous, it's lazy."The 16-mile road, if approved, would run through San Onofre, threatening scenic views, endangered species, and a world-class break.Thomas E. Margro, the TCA's chief executive officer, said he will appeal the commission's decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
For now, though, the surf-spot's defenders can breathe a little easier."The war isn't over," wrote longtime Trestles supporter Bob Mignogna in a Thursday morning email to fellow activists. "But clearly, the biggest battle, thus far, has been won."
February 6, 2008
It's been a week for the record books. Super Bowl Sunday rolled into Super Tuesday and finally, Big Wednesday. Anticipating a super-sized turnout at the mid-week critical toll road hearing, the California Coastal Commission traded in the usual Oceanside City Council Chamber for a XXL lot at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Good idea. People came out in droves. At the highest point, an estimated 2,500 Save Trestles supporters swarmed in and around the centrally located Wyland Hall, flanked with slogan-riddled t-shirts and rally signs.
"It's great to see," said former world champ Pete Townend, who mingled with the crowd. "These are the real people who recognize San Onfore State Park's true value in their lives, not a bunch of paid sign holders in orange shirts who look like they've never seen the beach."
Townend was referring the significantly smaller showing of road workers who supported the 241-extension.Current WCT Pro CJ Hobgood echoed similar sentiments: "I'm really honored to be a part of the surfing family. Now, just waiting to see if this nuts presence will yield some results."It did. Just after 11pm Pacific Time, after 14 hours of presentations from members of Save Trestles campaign, the TCA, and personal testimonies from public, the Commission voted 8 - 2 against the proposed 241 Toll Road extension, stating its inconsistency with the California Coastal Act.The packed-house erupted in cheers."Huge," said Carlsbad's Taylor Knox after the decision. "This was such a huge victory towards saving something that, once it's taken away from us, can never be put back."
"This was such a huge victory towards saving something that, once it's taken away from us, can never be put back."
--Taylor KnoxSanta Monica's Graham Hamilton drew cheers earlier in the night when he used his public testimony to reject suggestions that the surfers simply want to guard their local territory from inlanders: "My opposition would be just as sharp if it crossed Yosemite or bisected Joshua Tree. The idea of building a toll road through a state park is not only ludicrous, it's lazy."The 16-mile road, if approved, would run through San Onofre, threatening scenic views, endangered species, and a world-class break.Thomas E. Margro, the TCA's chief executive officer, said he will appeal the commission's decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
For now, though, the surf-spot's defenders can breathe a little easier."The war isn't over," wrote longtime Trestles supporter Bob Mignogna in a Thursday morning email to fellow activists. "But clearly, the biggest battle, thus far, has been won."
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Riverside County eWaste
Electronic hazardous waste (e-waste) is generated by almost every individual, institution and business. Many types of electronic products used in the workplace and homes contain hazardous substances like lead and mercury. When these products reach the end of their usefulness or become obsolete, they may be considered hazardous waste.
Hazardous waste may not be discarded in the regular trash. It must be sent to a facility that has a permit for treatment (including recycling), storage or disposal. Wastes are hazardous waste when they exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: if they are toxic, ignitable, corrosive or reactive. Many electronic wastes exhibit toxicity characteristics due to the presence of lead.
automatic shut-off irons
cell phones
DVD players
electronic games
fax machines
microwaves
copiers
computers, monitors
VCRs
stereos
televisions
E-Waste Disposal
Residents may dispose of their E-Waste for FREE at the next Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event.
The City of Moreno Valley and the Riverside County Waste Management Department host Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Events at the City Maintenance Yard located at 15670 Perris Blvd. in Moreno Valley. These Events are held in February, March, June and October and are free to all Riverside County residents. Learn more about hazardous waste collection events...
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Californians against Waste
Welcome to the Home of Californians Against Waste!
Hot Issues
We want to thank all of our friends and stakeholders for your continued support for California's environment and for Californians Against Waste.
Among our priorities in 2008:
Reduce the proliferation of plastic litter and waste in the environment through new state and local policies on takeout food packaging, including restrictions on PVC and Polystyrene.
Expanding California's e-waste policy to reduce toxics and increase opportunities and incentives for recycling.
California's ambitious effort to combat climate change and reduce GHG emissions will require that we substantially reduce waste beyond our existing goals. But if we are to be successful, we need to shift from the 'back end' focus and burden on local governments, to proven 'front end' producer responsibility strategies aimed at source reduction and market development, as well as recycling. And as always, we welcome your advice and assistance in identifying problems that need our attention and solutions that need to be brought to the attention of policy makers. Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me any time.It's an ambitious agenda, but with your help I'm confident we can be successful. Please help us fulfill this agenda by going here now!
Hot Issues
We want to thank all of our friends and stakeholders for your continued support for California's environment and for Californians Against Waste.
Among our priorities in 2008:
Reduce the proliferation of plastic litter and waste in the environment through new state and local policies on takeout food packaging, including restrictions on PVC and Polystyrene.
Expanding California's e-waste policy to reduce toxics and increase opportunities and incentives for recycling.
California's ambitious effort to combat climate change and reduce GHG emissions will require that we substantially reduce waste beyond our existing goals. But if we are to be successful, we need to shift from the 'back end' focus and burden on local governments, to proven 'front end' producer responsibility strategies aimed at source reduction and market development, as well as recycling. And as always, we welcome your advice and assistance in identifying problems that need our attention and solutions that need to be brought to the attention of policy makers. Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me any time.It's an ambitious agenda, but with your help I'm confident we can be successful. Please help us fulfill this agenda by going here now!
AMERICANS WILL THROW OUT more than 12 million tons of electronic equipment next year according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C., estimates. Without programs to recycle this electronic waste (e-waste), the old computers, televisions, cell phones, and other devices made of plastic, metal, glass and toxic chemicals will begin to choke the nation's landfills.
To prevent this problem, the EPA has conducted several electronics recycling (e-cycling) pilot programs in conjunction with local governments and retailers. The lessons learned from these pilots can aid in establishing permanent e-cycling programs nationwide.
The first EPA pilot tested the effectiveness of curbside collection and drop-off e-waste locations in Mid-Atlantic states between Oct. 1, 2001, and Dec. 30, 2002. Pilot participants included the EPA's Philadelphia office; environmental agencies from several states and the District of Columbia; local solid waste departments; electronics manufacturers; electronic recycling companies; and private waste management companies.
The participants shared the e-cycling program's $1.9 million price tag, with the largest share — $1.4 million — falling on state environmental agencies and local governments. “This was the first time we came up with a system of shared financial responsibilities to pay for, collect and deliver recyclable electronics,” says Claudette Reed, a scientist in the waste and chemicals management division of the EPA's Philadelphia office.
By sharing the burden of managing e-cycling programs, the EPA hopes the cost of hosting such programs will be viewed as reasonable by all groups involved.
According to the pilot's final report, the undertaking also yielded five lessons. First, aggressive advertising is critical to the success of an e-cycling program. In the pilot, local governments targeted advertisements at residents using television, newspapers, Web sites, flyers, posters and utility bill stuffers. During the 15-month pilot, the Delaware Solid Waste Authority alone spent $40,000 on advertising.
The pilot also taught the EPA that residents are generally willing to pay small end-of-life fees in the range of $2 to $5 to help pay for e-cycling.
The EPA also learned that permanent collection programs are more cost-effective than single-day collection events.
Additionally, a pilot program can serve as a catalyst for local governments to create permanent e-cycling programs. For example, the success of the pilot led officials in Lebanon County, Pa., to establish a permanent curbside electronics collection program. In Frederick County, Va., a successful drop-off event has led to plans for a series of e-cycling events.
Finally, the pilot confirmed that a high volume of residential and small-business electronic devices is available for collection and recycling.
Another EPA pilot begun in the Pacific Northwest now is operating nationally, thanks to Del Ray Beach, Fla.-based Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) based in Palo Alto, Calif. In this pilot, Office Depot agreed to take back old electronics through its national store network. HP then joined the program to see how it might contribute to current company recycling efforts, which break down old products for reuse.
While results have not yet been reported for this pilot, Katharine Osdoba, product stewardship team leader for the EPA, notes two points of interest. To date, recyclers have not found ways to make e-cycling profitable. If manufacturers can receive the materials directly and reuse them to manufacture new products, the economics may work better, she says. The EPA also is hoping that manufacturers interested in recycled electronic materials will begin working on green product designs to reduce toxic materials and make recycling easier.
In a third pilot, the EPA is exploring whether retailers are practical collection points for e-cycling. The EPA, office product retailer Staples, based in Framingham, Mass., and the nonprofit Product Stewardship Institute operated the program. In this pilot, consumers returned used electronics to Staples, which transported the materials to central warehouses for pickup by recyclers. “Finding ways to move materials to a point where recyclers can pick [them] up in bulk has been a problem,” Osdoba says. “We're waiting for data on the pilot to see whether this approach might work.”
In the meantime, California and Maine have decided not to wait for pilot results and passed legislation governing e-waste. The California legislation mirrors existing state legislation for recycling tires, batteries and other difficult-to-recycle products. In California, consumers purchasing electronics products will pay recycling fees to retailers at the point of purchase. The fees will go to state environmental regulatory agencies, which in turn fund recycling programs and enforcement.
Maine's legislation takes a different tack. It will begin as a traditional state-funded recycling program. However, within a few years, the program will be funded by manufacturers instead of the state. “This is consistent with programs in Europe and Japan,” says Kevin McCarthy, vice president of government affairs with Houston-based Waste Management Inc.
Today, the search for e-waste solutions is just a few years old. It began when the EPA formed the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) in 2001. Members include electronics manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, and state and local governments.
NEPSI aims to develop ways to collect, reuse and recycle used electronics, and to suggest incentives to stimulate source-reduction, reuse, recycle, reduce toxicity and increase recycled content in product design. Additionally, the organization has attempted to discuss financing mechanisms for e-cycling, but this has been a contentious issue.
Nevertheless, NEPSI discussions and pilot programs similar to those conducted by the EPA are characteristic of the development of national regulatory programs, Osdoba says. As groups and pilot programs define options, states will draw on that information to develop legislation. After several states have weighed-in on the issue, the federal government likely will develop national legislation defining minimum e-cycling standards, using the most sensible state programs as a benchmark. With federal legislation in place, states then will be able to enforce or raise the minimum standards to suit their needs, she says.
To prevent this problem, the EPA has conducted several electronics recycling (e-cycling) pilot programs in conjunction with local governments and retailers. The lessons learned from these pilots can aid in establishing permanent e-cycling programs nationwide.
The first EPA pilot tested the effectiveness of curbside collection and drop-off e-waste locations in Mid-Atlantic states between Oct. 1, 2001, and Dec. 30, 2002. Pilot participants included the EPA's Philadelphia office; environmental agencies from several states and the District of Columbia; local solid waste departments; electronics manufacturers; electronic recycling companies; and private waste management companies.
The participants shared the e-cycling program's $1.9 million price tag, with the largest share — $1.4 million — falling on state environmental agencies and local governments. “This was the first time we came up with a system of shared financial responsibilities to pay for, collect and deliver recyclable electronics,” says Claudette Reed, a scientist in the waste and chemicals management division of the EPA's Philadelphia office.
By sharing the burden of managing e-cycling programs, the EPA hopes the cost of hosting such programs will be viewed as reasonable by all groups involved.
According to the pilot's final report, the undertaking also yielded five lessons. First, aggressive advertising is critical to the success of an e-cycling program. In the pilot, local governments targeted advertisements at residents using television, newspapers, Web sites, flyers, posters and utility bill stuffers. During the 15-month pilot, the Delaware Solid Waste Authority alone spent $40,000 on advertising.
The pilot also taught the EPA that residents are generally willing to pay small end-of-life fees in the range of $2 to $5 to help pay for e-cycling.
The EPA also learned that permanent collection programs are more cost-effective than single-day collection events.
Additionally, a pilot program can serve as a catalyst for local governments to create permanent e-cycling programs. For example, the success of the pilot led officials in Lebanon County, Pa., to establish a permanent curbside electronics collection program. In Frederick County, Va., a successful drop-off event has led to plans for a series of e-cycling events.
Finally, the pilot confirmed that a high volume of residential and small-business electronic devices is available for collection and recycling.
Another EPA pilot begun in the Pacific Northwest now is operating nationally, thanks to Del Ray Beach, Fla.-based Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) based in Palo Alto, Calif. In this pilot, Office Depot agreed to take back old electronics through its national store network. HP then joined the program to see how it might contribute to current company recycling efforts, which break down old products for reuse.
While results have not yet been reported for this pilot, Katharine Osdoba, product stewardship team leader for the EPA, notes two points of interest. To date, recyclers have not found ways to make e-cycling profitable. If manufacturers can receive the materials directly and reuse them to manufacture new products, the economics may work better, she says. The EPA also is hoping that manufacturers interested in recycled electronic materials will begin working on green product designs to reduce toxic materials and make recycling easier.
In a third pilot, the EPA is exploring whether retailers are practical collection points for e-cycling. The EPA, office product retailer Staples, based in Framingham, Mass., and the nonprofit Product Stewardship Institute operated the program. In this pilot, consumers returned used electronics to Staples, which transported the materials to central warehouses for pickup by recyclers. “Finding ways to move materials to a point where recyclers can pick [them] up in bulk has been a problem,” Osdoba says. “We're waiting for data on the pilot to see whether this approach might work.”
In the meantime, California and Maine have decided not to wait for pilot results and passed legislation governing e-waste. The California legislation mirrors existing state legislation for recycling tires, batteries and other difficult-to-recycle products. In California, consumers purchasing electronics products will pay recycling fees to retailers at the point of purchase. The fees will go to state environmental regulatory agencies, which in turn fund recycling programs and enforcement.
Maine's legislation takes a different tack. It will begin as a traditional state-funded recycling program. However, within a few years, the program will be funded by manufacturers instead of the state. “This is consistent with programs in Europe and Japan,” says Kevin McCarthy, vice president of government affairs with Houston-based Waste Management Inc.
Today, the search for e-waste solutions is just a few years old. It began when the EPA formed the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) in 2001. Members include electronics manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, and state and local governments.
NEPSI aims to develop ways to collect, reuse and recycle used electronics, and to suggest incentives to stimulate source-reduction, reuse, recycle, reduce toxicity and increase recycled content in product design. Additionally, the organization has attempted to discuss financing mechanisms for e-cycling, but this has been a contentious issue.
Nevertheless, NEPSI discussions and pilot programs similar to those conducted by the EPA are characteristic of the development of national regulatory programs, Osdoba says. As groups and pilot programs define options, states will draw on that information to develop legislation. After several states have weighed-in on the issue, the federal government likely will develop national legislation defining minimum e-cycling standards, using the most sensible state programs as a benchmark. With federal legislation in place, states then will be able to enforce or raise the minimum standards to suit their needs, she says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)