Why Eternal Vigilance About E-Waste Distortions is Crucial

Not long ago, I sat in a room listening to what I thought would be an informative, objective meeting comparing California’s SB-20 Monitor recycling system with New York’s e-waste recycling regulation. It turns out that it wasn’t what I thought it would be. Let me explain.

The host introduced the speaker as someone intimately involved in actually testifying in what I assumed was the New York e-waste rule injunction. As the guest speaker continued, I began to think that the audience was being set up.  My suspicions were soon confirmed when the speaker began to provide what I thought were personal comments about New York’s program, only reciting them as fact. I knew immediately this guy never owned, managed or worked in an e-waste treatment facility. Furthermore, he said that his firm was also representing local recyclers. Huh?

He continued to recite the reasons the New York program wouldn’t work and laid out its flaws. He particularly noted the non-compliance penalties, and harped on and on with redundant comments, as if trying to convince himself. All the non-compliance issues he mentioned were to me simply typical, everyday e-waste administrative duties.

The consultant spoke following an SB-20 program speaker. Yes, there are problems with the SB20 programs. But overall, it’s working, and the regulation also allows for periodic changes. To add support to the program, $40 million in SB-20 funds have been set aside as a reserve. The State of California seems to be managing the cash generated from consumer recycling fees well. One major problem mentioned involved a four-month waiting period for initial payments from the state. On the other hand, payments thereafter are made every month. I could see some cash flow issues for smaller companies without asset-based lending (loans made against invoices and finished inventory advances). However, mechanisms exist to help speed cash flow for those who qualify. Also, regardless of what might be said about California’s budget issues, the consumers’ e-waste recycling funds are not affected, and payments are consistent.

During the question-and-answer session I asked about the many execution problems that surfaced during his presentation. Has his firm provided any solutions? His long answer was essentially a no. He mentioned there was a lack of infrastructure. I followed up by noting there are many northeast recyclers, including a few in New York that have invested in e-waste processing equipment, and that most now have unused capacity. In fact, I pointed out, one New York recycler filed for bankruptcy while waiting for an effective New York program, and did he have any comments about that? Fortunately, I knew the SB-20 panelist, and was aware of his east coast operation with excess capacity. I made it a point to address this question to him. His simple response: “we could handle it.”

It all boils down to funding. In New York, OEMs do not know how to add $6-20 to their toxin-bearing products, in order to cover toxin management and recycling costs.  They’re not aware the additional recycling fees can generate income and create jobs. The State of California takes more that 6% of all money collected for the program and employs a team of people to oversee it.  E-waste is thus diverted from the waste stream and it has now become an accepted recycling program. The first year SB-20 was executed; there were only five authorized recyclers. Now there are 60, with the same ratio applying to SB collectors.

The happy irony is that some OEMs have their own recycling programs. So the last question I was silently wondering about who are these two presenters representing? Fortunately, someone asked that very question.

During a long response, they said they were hired by a law firm, which prompted a follow-up question: who’s paying the law firm? The answer: OEMs. Sighs were heard around the room. So there it was: hired guns were distorting issues and impeding progress and maturity in our industry.
At the end of the day, anything humans invent, develop or execute will have problems. It requires “smart guns” and patience to figure this out. But when there is a lack of will in facing the real issues, it causes more problems than the original issue of diverting toxins from our food chain and from the larger environment. Thus this consulting firm’s actions were actually hurting our industry.

But throwing up our hands and giving in to factual distortions is unacceptable. After the meeting, one major recycler I know said “OEMs represented will subcontract to the nearest recycler with port facilities.” I laughed then. But later, it saddened me to think it may be true, if they eventually have their way.