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. Our most serious concerns are 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 alternatives where possible.
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.
3. 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. Moreover, we would require the independence to critically assess the program.
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.
2.
3. We agree with this point.
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.
7.
8.
9.
10. We agree.
B. Residual Lifespan Criteria
We believe this criteria should only be applicable to shipping charitable equipment overseas. However, we must note that Free Geek does not consider sending workable items to less developed countries to be appropriate, since is recycling infrastructure in these countries is usually not properly equipped to process the hazardous materials inside electronics.
For all other cases, including domestic reuse, 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 (or repurposing old parts for other purposes, like using old printer components for robotics projects). 2.
This document outlines criteria for determining
whether a piece of hardware should be reused or
discarded. Under these criteria, only recent,
relatively powerful machines running Windows (or
recent Macs) would be eligible for reuse;
everything else would have to be discarded. (See
the wiki for more details.)
The group raised a number of concerns:
-The proposed criteria don't allow for free or open-source software, and reinstalling existing proprietary operating systems likely requires purchasing a new license.
-Lots of the donations we receive wouldn't meet these criteria even though older machines can be quite useful -- for example, the 14 LSTP workstations in the computer lab wouldn't meet the criteria, despite being perfectly appropriate for a work/education environment. They were made from P2s.
-Computers are treated as a whole, with no provision for dismantling machines and reusing or replacing parts (or repurposing old parts for other purposes, like using old printer components for robotics projects).
-Educational, repurposing, experimental, or artistic re-use should not be excluded from consideration.
In general, the proposed minimum requirements are extremely simplistic and don't apply well to practical applications/problems of reusing computer technology. Such "minimum requirements" were almost entirely rejected by the group.
It was noted that the program's desire to ensure that obsolete equipment was not dumped on consumers is a good one. The spirit of reuse however is severly crippled in the draft.
Sim suggested that a requirement for refurbished equipment to be "marketable" (i.e., likely to appeal to end-users) might be better. He commented that the focus seems to be on being a collection point, at the expense of other things.
Ifny noted that maybe RCBC's original idea was to ensure that only legimate, working equipment was sent overseas. She proposed if that was case, some minimum requirements might be restricted to working items shipped abroad. This would help ensure that developing countries get easily usable equipment, while allowing groups in BC to find creative ways of reusing as much hardware as possible. It was noted that Free Geek does not consider sending workable items to poorer countries to be appropriate, since there is no sustainable recycling infrastructiure.
C. Implementation Plan
We would like a definition of "person-to-person exchanges".
D. Commentary from Basel Action Network
This was an emergency public meeting to discuss the Recycling Council of BC's Computer Reuse Standard, which aims to establish standards for quality control among reuse organizations. allo
- Background
The provincial government's e-waste recycling program comes into effect on August 1. At last May's RCBC conference in Whistler, some RCBC members (including Free Geek) expressed concern that the program has no provision for reuse. In response, RCBC has been developing its Computer Reuse Standard program, which aims to establish standards for quality control in the reuse of e-waste through a process of certifying groups involved in the refurbishing and reuse of old hardware. The certification program will not be mandatory, but obviously it would greatly benefit Free Geek to be certified.
A few days ago RCBC sent David Repa several draft documents pertaining to the program and asked for feedback; their aim is to finalize the documents by August 1. As David announced in an earlier email to the general mailing list, the draft documents have been posted to the FreeGeek wiki:
http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/RCBC_proposed_%22BC_Computer_Reuse_Standard%22
David and Ifny called the July 17 meeting so that Free Geek members would have a chance to discuss the documents and develop an official response to the program as it is currently proposed. Each document was discussed in turn.
- Residual Lifespan Criteria
This document outlines criteria for determining whether a piece of hardware should be reused or discarded. Under these criteria, only recent, relatively powerful machines running Windows (or recent Macs) would be eligible for reuse; everything else would have to be discarded. (See the wiki for more details.)
The group raised a number of concerns:
-The proposed criteria don't allow for free or open-source software, and reinstalling existing proprietary operating systems likely requires purchasing a new license.
-Lots of the donations we receive wouldn't meet these criteria even though older machines can be quite useful -- for example, the 14 LSTP workstations in the computer lab wouldn't meet the criteria, despite being perfectly appropriate for a work/education environment. They were made from P2s.
-Computers are treated as a whole, with no provision for dismantling machines and reusing or replacing parts (or repurposing old parts for other purposes, like using old printer components for robotics projects).
-Educational, repurposing, experimental, or artistic re-use should not be excluded from consideration.
In general, the proposed minimum requirements are extremely simplistic and don't apply well to practical applications/problems of reusing computer technology. Such "minimum requirements" were almost entirely rejected by the group.
It was noted that the program's desire to ensure that obsolete equipment was not dumped on consumers is a good one. The spirit of reuse however is severly crippled in the draft.
Sim suggested that a requirement for refurbished equipment to be "marketable" (i.e., likely to appeal to end-users) might be better. He commented that the focus seems to be on being a collection point, at the expense of other things.
Ifny noted that maybe RCBC's original idea was to ensure that only legimate, working equipment was sent overseas. She proposed if that was case, some minimum requirements might be restricted to working items shipped abroad. This would help ensure that developing countries get easily usable equipment, while allowing groups in BC to find creative ways of reusing as much hardware as possible. It was noted that Free Geek does not consider sending workable items to poorer countries to be appropriate, since there is no sustainable recycling infrastructiure.
- Pledge of Stewardship
To be certified by RCBC, reuse organizations would have to sign (and be bound by) a 10-point "BC Computer Reuse Organization Pledge of Stewardship." FG members had problems with many of the points in this pledge. Contentious points from the pledge are reproduced below, with FG members' comments following.
"1. We will not allow any residual computer waste that is not suitable for reuse to be sent to solid waste, landfills or incinerators for disposal or energy recovery, either directly or through intermediaries."
- Members thought FG should get clarification on
whether "incineration" includes smelting.
"2. We commit to ensuring that unusable electronics will be directed for safe environmentally responsible recycling through the approved provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program."
- This point would force FG to recycle discarded
e-waste through Encorp, thus preventing us from seeking better, more environmentally friendly alternatives.
- Dave proposed mandating transparency, rather
than mandating who the recycler is.
- Sim suggested rewording this point to say
"...recycling that meets the minimum standards set by the provincial program." It was observed that the program's minimum standards aren't explicitly defined; in theory, Encorp's practices would be the de facto minimum standard.
- Ifny suggested more articulated standards,
like BAN's (e.g. no prison labour, not shipping to non-OECD countries)
- Members noted that forcing everyone to go
though Encorp might at least keep some disreputable recyclers from cutting corners (e.g., shipping toxic waste materials to other countries). However, everyone felt that this requirement was unacceptable.
Points 3-5 were acceptable to all members, except that point 4 should read "reload AN operating system" rather than "reload THE operating system." It was stated that installing an operating system after data wiping is good for data security. However, there is no good reason that only the previous operating system should be reinstalled. Any operating system would do, including Linux.
"6. We agree to provide ESBC with details as to the number of whole units collected as well as the number of whole units donated or sold on an annual basis. We will also document and report the number of whole units and the volume of components, by weight, diverted for recycling through the BC stewardship program."
- Several members objected to this on the
grounds that ESBC is an industry group rather than a government or civil society group.
- Members discussed why this data would be
collected (to provide an audit trail; to use in the recycling program's PR materials, demographic info).
- Support was expressed at the potential to make
other organisations more transparent.
- Joe suggested that these details should be
provided to "the public" (e.g., by posting them on FG's website) rather than giving them to ESBC. Members supported this proposal.
"7. We agree to adhere to environmentally responsible operating methods as well as municipal and provincial bylaws and regulations. We will ensure that any unregulated wastes will be disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner in line with the spirit of the Recycling Regulation. We will provide liability insurance for accidents and incidents involving wastes under our control and ownership."
- Members had no problem with the first two clauses.
- The question of insurance was subject to much
debate. Some members felt that environmental insurance was a good idea; others felt that requiring environmental insurance could push smaller reuse groups (possibly including FG) out of business. Members expressed concern for both environmental protection and corporate responsibility.
Ultimately the issue was tabled pending more research before FG takes a stance on this subject.
"8. We will ensure due diligence throughout the
period that the product is in our procession with
a transparent and documented record of the chain
of possession from acquisition to dispensation."
- Members again felt this point was simplistic,
since "product" requires clarification. How does it relate to components of a computer?
- There was concern that FG would have to assign
part numbers to all parts of disassembled machines to satisfy this requirement. Paul suggested that if it came to that, we could probably discount most parts as peripheral and only track major components like motherboards.
- Ifny noted that we don't want to have to track
the original donor of each item, since doing so would raise privacy concerns and would be labor-intensive.
"9. We agree to support BC's regulated Electronics Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program by streaming residual E-waste to the program for disposal, providing information and data to assist in program monitoring and evaluation, providing feedback to improve program performance and cooperating with program stakeholders."
- Members were not comfortable with being
required to "support" EPR; we want FG to be free to criticize the program if need be, and be an organisation that the public can trust to be unbiased. Cooperation with program stakeholders was particularly problematic and requires clarification
Members had no objection to point 10.
- Qualification Questionnaire
To be certified by RCBC, reuse organizations would need to complete a questionnaire. Members felt that the questionnaire was acceptable. It was noted that some of the questions, such as the one about waste permits, could apply to FG, and that it would be worthwhile to follow up on those points.
Ifny proposed anti-oppression training could be part of our own "industry" training.
- Further Discussion
Ifny read out an email from the Basel Action Network which outlined its stance on various pertinent issues, such as shipping refurbished hardware to developing countries and the hazards of smelting. Members strongly approved of BAN's opinions. BAN invited FG to incorporate this material into its response to the proposed reuse standards. Ifny will post BAN's opinions on the FG website. They are also included at the bottom of these minutes.
Members discussed whether it would be all right to share the RCBC draft documents publicly. Since there was no restriction on sharing them when FG received them, members felt it probably wasn't a problem. We are extremely pleased to have been consulted for feedback and included in this loop.
A draft response will be sent to the general mailing list by Thursday. Members agreed that FG's response should recognize that, despite our significant reservations about the draft documents, the provincial program is a major step in the right direction.
Ifny suggested a press release to coincide with BAN movie night on Aug 2. The Communications workgroup will help to draft the press release.
The following is BAN's statement:
begin cut----------
Basel Action Network maintains that:
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.
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.
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.
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.
end cut----------
_______________________________________________