Response (draft)

Re: RCBC Computer Reuse Organization Standard

Free Geek's membership met recently to discuss the proposed standard. We are very encouraged by the spirit of the document, as it represents a significant step forward from current, unregulated practices. We agree that there is a need for certifying reuse organizations and resellers in BC, and that a strict standard to which these organizations can be held will go a long way toward eliminating unethical or illegal practices. However, our membership has a number of serious concerns, which will be described in detail later in this document along with proposed resolutions, the most serious being as follows:

1. We cannot commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. At this time it is far from certain that the program will follow the best possible environmental practices. We must reserve the right to seek better, more sustainable alternatives wherever possible, as they emerge.

2. We feel the residual lifespan criteria is needlessly restrictive and would prohibit innovative reuse and repurpose models, greatly reducing the amount of reusable product and its educational benefits.

3. We are uncomfortable being formally required to support BC's EPR program. As a community organization dedicated to public trust, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been explicitly defined and which we have not audited.

The remainder of this document comprises a detailed listing of all of our concerns, proposed resolutions, and commentary from the Basel Action Network.

A. Pledge of Stewardship

We will address each item individually.

1. We would like a clear distinction made between incineration and smelting. There has been speculation that e-waste moving through the provincial program will be smelted; this item would appear to prohibit re-use organizations from participating meaningfully in the provincial program. Clarification is required. We strongly agree with the remainder of this item.

2. We cannot commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. At this time we are unable to ascertain that the program will follow the best possible environmental practices. We must reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, without bias towards organisations responsible for the program. Instead of a mandated recycler, we prefer articulated standards like those provided by the Basel Action Network (e.g. no prison labour, not shipping to non-OECD countries; see the BAN pledge at http://ww.ban.org/pledge/electronics_recycler_pledge.pdf)

3. We agree.

4. We agree, with one minor edit. "reload the operating system" should become "reload an operating system", to allow for the operating system loaded being different from the one previously resident on the disk prior to wiping.

5. We agree.

6. We consider transparency essential to regulation, and are pleased to see industry-led pressure on this front. However we are reluctant to submit all re-use data to ESBC as it is an industry group, rather than a government or public body. We consider it more appropriate to require that every re-use organisations make these details available to the general public, in an easily accessed location such as a website or wiki. For some time, other Free Geeks have done this voluntarily as a matter of course. (See an example at http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/PDX_Recycling_Vendors)

7. We agree to the spirit of the item. However, we are concerned that the cost of such insurance may be prohibitive to smaller organizations and must withhold final comment until we have researched the matter.

8. We feel this point is considerably vague; the term "product" requires elaboration. How does it relate to the components of a computer, which may be disassembled and reassembled? CRT monitors could be tracked, but almost every component inside a computer could be swapped out; some of these parts may be reusable and some not. Also, we would like assurance that organisations are not required to collect personal information about the persons donating the product, to maintain individuals' privacy.

9. We are uncomfortable being required to support BC's EPR program. As a community organization with responsibility to public trust, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been properly defined and which we have not audited. We want to be free to criticize the program if need be, and to be an organization that the public can trust to be unbiased. We require a precise definition of what "co-operation with program stakeholders" entails and must re- iterate our mission to continually seek out the best possible environmental practices and to bring public attention to any practices that fall short of this standard.

10. We agree.

B. Residual Lifespan Criteria

With respect to systems for export to developing countries: We agree that there is a need to regulate the type of systems sent overseas for "re-use", as a lot of systems currently shipped under this label are in fact scrap. An age limit is probably the best indication of the remaining lifespan of the system; more detailed specifciations, such as processor speed or hard disk size, are unnecessary, since they are directly correlated with the system's age, and will in fact change over time, necessating updating of the standard.

However, we must note that Free Geek does not consider sending used items to less developed countries to be appropriate unless there is clear provision either for proper recycling in those countries, or for shipping the items back to developed countries where they may be properly recycled.

With respect to systems re-used domestically or in developed countries: We find the proposed minimum requirements to be overly simplistic and not well applicable to the practical issues inherent in computer technology reuse, for the following reasons:

1. Computers are treated as a whole, with no provision for dismantling machines and reusing or replacing parts. Some parts can be repurposed for other purposes, like using old printer components for robotics projects, or using systems or parts for artistic endeavors or as film props. We are also able to satisfy occasional local businesses' requests for legacy hardware, such as old floppy disk readers.

2. There is no provision for free or open-source software as an alternative to propriety operating systems. Open source software can prolong the lifetime of older hardware and enables lower-cost refurbished systems since there is no need to purchase new software licenses.

3. Our experiences have shown that the proposed minimum standard would divert a large amount of working, reusable hardware to recycling. In particular, thin client networks can be created using one powerful server and many less-powerful client computers. An example is the Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP), recently adopted by the Kamloops District 73 School (see article: http://www.sd73.bc.ca/district-operations.php/page/linux-in-education/). Free Geek's own LTSP lab is composed of Pentium-II computers.

Our membership is generally is agreement that, with the possible exception of overseas shipping, a residual lifespan criteria is needlessly restrictive and would prohibit innovative reuse and repurpose models, greatly reducing the amount of reusable product.

C. Implementation Plan

We would like a definition of "person-to-person exchanges".

D. Conclusion

We support in principle the regulation of computer reuse organizations in BC. If our outstanding concerns can be addressed, we look forward to further involvement in this program.

Appendix. Commentary from Basel Action Network

Free Geek's opinions on e-waste and recycling are strongly influenced by those of our friend and ally, the Basel Action Network (BAN). The following is BAN's statement.

Basel Action Network maintains that:

1. Advanced recycling fees are not a good financing mechanism in that they do not involve the manufacturers in the end-of-life management of their products, and thereby do nothing to drive redesign for the environment and human health. If manufacturers have to pay for end-of-life costs (e.g. via incorporating these costs into the price of a new product), then they have a direct economic incentive to redesign their products to be less toxic, more upgradeable, more easily recycled, and perhaps longer lived. Ultimately, toxic waste issues must be addressed upstream in the manufacturing phase of a product’s lifecycle.

2. Reuse of electronics is environmentally preferable to destruction, but only if tested working and labeled equipment with a long life is allowed into the reuse market, and particularly the developing countries. Both the EU and Australia have developed detailed criteria for determining when a used electronic is a product acceptable for exporting for reuse, or is a waste, based on interpretation of the international treaty (Basel Convention) that governs the trade in toxic wastes. (www.basel.int) Our criteria for tested working equipment would allow for older equipment that runs on open source software to be allowed into the reuse market, if it is tested and fully functional, and has a reasonable life expectancy.

3. Refurbishment/repair of equipment generated in developed countries such as Canada or the US must occur in the developed world prior to export to developing countries, if those repairs will result in the replacement or removal of a hazardous part (such as circuit boards, CRTs, fluorescent lamps, batteries, etc.) In order to determine what types of repairs are needed, testing must be accomplished.

4. Smelters play an important role in reclaiming metals from materials. Because smelting always creates toxins, it is important to only use smelters that use the best technology to minimize the creation of dioxins and furans, and to capture toxic air emissions. Circuit boards and other metal-bearing e-scrap generated in developed countries should only be smelted in developed countries. We support the use of smelters in countries such as Canada, US, Belgium and Sweden, rather than using smelters in the developing countries. We do not support sending this entire e-waste stream directly to smelters, where much of the materials are not reclaimed, but rather are burned (which is a form of disposal, including waste-to-energy processes.) End-of-life electronics should be manually or mechanically separated and subsequent materials sent for material separation and reuse (e.g. plastics back into plastics usage, etc.) rather than burned or used as BTUs in a thermal process, even in waste-to-energy facilities. Thermal processing of plastics impregnated with brominated flame retardants can create brominated dioxins and furans at certain temperatures.