How Unwise E-Waste Regulation Forces Us To Compete Against Our Own Tax Dollars

Recently, I read two editorial responses on e-waste certifications. Both are now available on the market and certification choices have progressive objectives, but with clear distinctions. I’ve followed both processes closely and realize the emerging e-waste/e-scrap industries are making strides.

During the development process, what is most interesting is the wicked-witch-of-the-west mentality between both certification providers. Inadvertently, this has divided recyclers, who are airing their main differences and thus bringing it to the forefront of the industry. They amount to differing interpretations of socially responsible e-waste treatment solutions.

Before I dive into the main points of contention, I should say that I’m of the opinion that certifications are secondary requirements. If a company has a mature and comprehensive EH&S program, one will find that most of these compliance programs are for the most part required by local, state and federal regulatory agencies anyway.
 
Assuming all e-waste treatment companies adhere to existing U.S. solid waste regulatory requirements without applying the after-thought e-waste exemptions, e-waste is managed as a toxin. One will find both certification process and systems will be attained without major hurdles.

The after-thought I’m referring to is RCRA’s solid waste characterization. This exemption is what I believe to be the main point of contention here. It’s well known that e-waste under solid waste characterization test criteria would exceed state and federal hazardous waste threshold levels, and thus would be considered hazardous waste. The key here is that this exemption does not indemnify the e-waste generator of environmental liability.

This has created an extremely confusing regulatory environment. For example, let’s take a CRT processor in a Mexican border town.  Initially, the U.S. EPA and CA-SB20 approved this processor. But after processing numerous U.S. CRTs, Mexico’s equivalent of the EPA stated that the CRT company did not have the proper permits. EPA immediately revoked its support. I call this the “palm tree effect,” since it involves swinging with the crisis winds. Those same winds have now closed this facility. One would think both Mexico and the U.S EPA would communicate about U.S classified hazardous (broken CRTs) waste material crossing our southwestern borders.

Now, let’s say this company is never allowed to re-open. I foresee BK and unprocessed CRTs remaining on the property. We could see Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs) picking up the CRT clean-up tab for the Mexican property.

These confusing times compel us to manage e-waste as if it were hazardous, since it’s the safest position to take amid this uncertainty. Specialized e-waste environmental due diligence is more required now than it is in a highly regulated environment.

Returning to the issue of certification for a moment, one must ask: what purpose does this certification serve? Does it protect business? Does it protect OEMs? Does it protect the environment? Reading both certification requirements, I believe there are two points of destination that clearly delineate both certification positions:

One allows for prison labor
The other allows export (to the Third World) of untested electronic equipment
 
Regarding prison labor, I do not like the idea of competing against our own tax dollars and exporting non-working units to countries not mature enough to manage toxins and data breach legacies. In a word, it’s just plain wrong.