Ear To The Ground

California Waste Board is eliminated as part of buget compromise

As part of the recent budget compromise in California, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 63 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_63_bill_20090728_chaptered.html] which abolishes, effective 1/1/10, the Integrated Waste Management Board.  The IWMB oversaw municipal waste landfills and recycling programs in California.  The functions of the Board were transferred to the Natural Resources Agency.

Critics claim electronic waste legislation has loophole that allows nefarious conduct

HR 2595 was introduced in the House in May; its laudable objective is to prohibit the export of certain electronic waste (e.g., PC's, servers, monitors, TV's, printers, copiers, video game systems, and other products with circuit boards) to countries that are not members of the OECD or EU [plus Liechtenstein].  See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2595:.  The concern is the health and environmental impact of a variety of so-called heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, beryllium, and chromium, which can be dangerous if they are not handled properly.

Critics have focused on one term that provides an exception if the recycler states that the electronics are being shipped "for repair or refurbishment."  Concern is that dishonest recyclers could abuse the exception. 

The legislation is pending in the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

IMO adopts shipbreaking/recycling convention; critics are not impressed

To help with recycling of ships, last month the International Maritime Organization has adopted a convention that addresses the design, construction, operation, and preparation of a ship for recycling without compromising on safety and operational efficiency, according to the IMO.  Ships sent for recycling would be required to carry an inventory of hazardous materials.

The convention also addresses the operation of ship recycling facilities in an environmental sound and safe manner.  Certification and reporting requirements are included in the enforcement mechanisms.  Critics complain that the convention will not stop common, unsafe, and environmentally harmful practices in underdeveloped countries.  

The convention will enter into force 24 months after 15 member states, representing 40% of world merchant shipping by gross tonnage, have signed the convention.

 Summary information on the convention can be found at http://www.imo.org/About/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1773&doc_id=11368 and http://www.lr.org/NR/rdonlyres/8770F167-DA6F-4B76-A03E-2AB0AD0B8302/95768/LRIMOShipRecyclingConferenceReport.pdf.  Background information on ship recycling can be found at http://www.imo.org/environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=818.   Media commentary on the convention, including comments by critics, can be found at http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/05/25/stories/2009052550301200.htm, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/business/energy-environment/15ship.html, and http://www.nlsenlaw.org/copy_of_news/time-to-scrap-unsafe-shipbreaking.

California moves forward with "Green Chemistry" program

Last year, AB 1879 was enacted [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1879_bill_20080929_chaptered.html].  The legislation mandated that the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") develop a process by which chemicals found in consumer products are identified and prioritized, and alternatives for said chemicals are evaluated.  DTSC has now released a draft proposal outlining a program by which chemicals may be evaluated, and if necessary banned.

 DTSC will first generate a list of chemicals for which a minimum set of data is not available.  The minimum consists of information on acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, teratogenicity or developmental and reproductive toxicity, mutagenicity, ecotoxicity, and environmental fate.  To this list will also be added chemicals currently on one or more of lists that have been developed by State, Federal, and international agencies and health organizations (e.g., Proposition 65, various lists of the EU, and EPA's list of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals).  DTSC would then prioritize these chemicals.  The first cut would be to ascertain which of these chemicals exist in a consumer product used in California.  Those found in such consumer products would be prioritized based on several criteria, including volume used in California, whether the minimum data set exists, potential for human exposure, adverse effect on the environment, and persistence.

Manufacturers of consumer products containing one or more high priority chemicals are then required to undertake an "alternatives analysis", which includes an examination of the impacts of the a) product and b) product formulation if alternatives are used.  The scope of the examination is from raw material acquisition and processing through waste and "end-of-life" management.  Any manufacturer that wishes to continue use of the high priority chemical must mitigate the impact by taking various actions, including product labeling, enclosing the hazard through engineering controls, and providing end-of-use management.  After 1/1/14 the product will be banned if the risks cannot be modified by such measures and feasible alternatives exist.

The draft proposal can be found at:  http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/Draft-straw-proposal-outline.pdf

California's DTSC will use Wiki as part of its Green Chemistry Program

Prior posts have described California's Green Chemistry Program [see http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/index.cfm].  California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has now announced that it will use a "Wiki" to gather public comments regarding the development of regulations necessary to implement the program [see http://cagreenchem.wikidot.com/].  The fundamental principles and objectives of the program can be found at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryResources/index.cfm#What_is_green_chemistry.

California's DTSC releases policy recommendations for State's Green Chemistry Program

As noted in the prior post of 8/5/08, DTSC released six reports containing various recommendations about California's green chemistry initiative.  A brief overview of the recommendations was set forth.  DTSC has now released its “Green Chemistry Policy”.  The final policy contains six recommendations:

• Expand DTSC’s pollution prevention program.  The recommendation expands the industrial sectors covered by the current program, and seeks to reorient the program to emphasize “green chemistry” in lieu of “source reduction”.  Industry participation would be “voluntary”.  However, the program seems to anticipate an expansion of the current mandatory source reduction reports filed under the current program by businesses generating wastes above specified amounts.
• As noted in the prior post, efforts would be made to expand the Green Chemistry workforce, and the education and training of the public and new and existing personnel.
• As noted in the prior post, an online product ingredient network would be created.  The objective is to encourage informed choices about products bought and used.
• As noted in the prior post, an online toxic clearinghouse would be created.  This web-based portal would provide information on hazards and toxicological end-points for all chemicals, including chemical compounds and nanomaterials.
• Accelerate the quest for “safer products”.  A lifecycle analysis would occur during the design phase of a process to encourage manufacturers to use less toxic alternatives.  The analysis would be applied in some manner to all manufacturers, importers, and retailers of products sold in California that contain a “chemical of concern.”  AB 1879, signed into law in 2009, establishes the process of identifying “chemicals of concern” and creating the lifecycle analysis.  [See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1879_bill_20080929_chaptered.html; the legislation was described in a prior post.]
• Cradle-to-Cradle.  “Market forces” would be used to accelerate innovation and the selection of more sustainable non-toxic choices for consumers.  A “green scorecard” would be provided with products describing the product’s environmental “footprint”, which would reflect information from the aforenoted toxic clearinghouse on chemicals.

The Policy recognizes that it needs executive, legislative, and administrative action to be implemented, and notes that more specific measures to bring the recommendations into being would be developed over the next two years.

 

The Policy can be found at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/GREEN_Chem.pdf and its appendices at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/CGCI-Appendices.pdf.  The related news release, frequently asked questions, and summary of recommendations can be found, respectively, at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/PR12-120908_GreenChem.pdf, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/FAQs_greenchem.pdf, and http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/Summary_sheet.pdf. 

Sierra Club asks EPA to repeal Bush Administration hazardous waste recycling rule

A prior post (11/5/08) reviewed a rule (and its multi-year history) issued by EPA that changed the definition of hazardous waste in order to encourage waste recycling.  The post noted the following caveat:  "Critics see the new rule as an escape hatch for toxic waste.  One has only to remember the environmental harm caused by numerous battery and solvent 'recyclers' to recognize that the lack of controls, monitoring, and oversight can lead to some egregious harm.  While it is always desirable to recycle constituents that may make a meaningful contribution to a new product, it is important to bear in mind that these items, as EPA itself concedes, are in fact hazardous wastes under pre-rule law since they are composed mostly of solvents and metals.  The financial incentive for 'recyclers' to cheat will be extensive."

The Sierra Club has now petitioned EPA to repeal the rule.  Critics note that "EPA's own estimates found that the change would lead to only a miniscule 1.1 percent increase in hazardous waste recycling", and argue that the rule increases the risk of adverse environmental consequences from these waste products.  The critics argue that "More than 5,000 facilities involved in recycling are expected to take advantage of the loophole, which permits unlicensed and barely supervised companies to handle these industries' hazardous waste without taking the precautions outlined in federal laws that ensure safe storage, transport, treatment and disposal."  While this characterization is probably a bit extreme, there is no question that the rule should be reexamined to ascertain if the environment is being put at risk by this strategy, and if approaches exist to encourage recycling without losing oversight of the process.

California lighting task force recommends manufacturer/utility funded collection program for fluorescent lights

Although energy efficiency drives consumers toward use of fluorescent lights, there is one significant problem, mercury [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lights].  Last year Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 1109 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1109_bill_20071012_chaptered.html]; one of requirements of the legislation was that DTSC convene a task force to make recommendations about recycling fluorescent lights and educating the public about recycling the lights.  This requirement was driven in part by the fact that upon the expiration of the exemption from the Universal Waste Rule of household generated fluorescent lights in February 2006, there was no infrastructure for the collection of household generated fluroescent lights; in contrast there was deemed to be sufficient collection and recycling infrastructure for commercially-generated lights.

The Task Force has now issued its report.  The report notes that fluorescent lights have no value at the end of their useful life, that because of their efficiency it is desirable to encourage their use and to avoid raising their price to consumers, and unfortunately there is no substitute for the use of mercury in the product.  As such, the recommendation was that light manufacturers and utilities jointly fund a third-party administered light collection program for consumer-generated fluorescent lights.  The cost of the program would be shared among manufacturers, public utilities, and investor-owned utilities; the Task Force also recommended that only those manufacturers who participate in the program would be allowed to sell fluorescent lights in California.  The idea that somehow this cost would not be passed along, directly or indirectly, to consumers seems more than a little naive; obviously the elasticity of demand will influence whether these costs are passed on or absorbed.  There may also be Commerce Clause issues related to excluding manufacturers because they are not part of a fund whose income could be derived in another manner. 

The Task Force agreed it was desirable to have some sort of measurement of success for the program to help ascertain its effectiveness, but the members could not agree on what that metric should be.  The cost of the program was estimated to be in the $8-12 million per year range.

A copy of the Task Force report can be found at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/UniversalWaste/upload/ab1109_final.pdf.

Over the longterm, it would seem to be desirable to increase research funding for light-emitting diodes, which hold the promise of even greater efficiency and lower levels of toxic materials [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_emitting_diode].

EPA issues electronic waste guidelines; environmental groups are critical

EPA has released guidelines, which are not regulations and do not have the effect of law, regarding the recycling of electronic waste.  See http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/r2practices.htm.  EPA notes that the next step is to identify certification programs to verify electronics recyclers who adhere to the "R2" [responsible recycling] practices.  Critics, such as the Electronics TakeBack Coalition [http://www.computertakeback.com/], note that the guidelines will do nothing to stop irresponsible recyclers, a comment which seems self-evidence since the guidelines are just that, guidelines, and do not have the force of law.  [See GAO report on improper exporting of electronic waste at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1044.]

The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries has announced that it has adopted the R2 guidelines as part of its Recycling Industry Operating Standard certification program.  See http://www.isri.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=18462.

At present it is believed that 50-80% of recycled electronic waste goes to China, India, Ghana, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Thailand.  [See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.1395:]  There have been a number of reports noting the unsafe and unhealthy conditions under which electronic wastes are disassembled.  [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-waste.]

An amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal would have banned the export of all hazardous waste from developed countries to developing countries, but the amendment has not been adopted because too few countries have ratified it, including the U.S.  [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_Convention.]

Participation in recycling programs may increase if solid waste agencies use single-containers

Several decades ago, California, like many States, panicked at the thought that they would run out of space in existing landfills, and that few landfills would be constructed in the future.  Therefore, they enacted aggressive programs to keep various waste-streams out of landfills; it was amazing the quantity of otherwise recyclable items that had been sent to landfills.  [See http://www.epa.gov/osw/rcc/resources/action-plan/act-p1.htm.] 

As part of the mandatory diversion programs, a number of years ago, my local solid waste contractor used, as required by the local regulatory agency, various containers for recycling which were differentiated by the material (e.g., glass, newspaper, plastic bottles).  Starting about five years ago, the locals switched to single-containers: one for garbage (the volume of the container determined your monthly rate), and one each for yard waste and for all types of recycling (these two containers were of a standardized size and provided to all).  One of the advantages of such containers is that a single driver in a specially designed truck could go up and down the street and unload a container in a quick and efficient action (a "fork" on the side of the truck picked up a container and dumped it into the truck); there were thus three trucks working the neighborhood, one for each type of container.  [It also worked to the advantage of the contractor since their regulated return was often calculated based on capital investment, not labor, and so having three specialty trucks meant a "nice" return on their investment.]  What I have noticed in my unscientific observation of my neighbors is that although family size varied enormously from household to household, the quantity of items in the recycling and yard waste containers were often nearly equal.  The good news is that California has met its highly aggressive goals for reducing solid waste headed for landfills, and greatly increasing its recycling.  [For example, green waste is frequently composted and either sold or used in conjunction with various plantings in public areas (e.g., parks, highway medians).]

Now a national study, though of questionable statistical validity, has supported these ad hoc observations.  Skumatz Economic Research Associates sent surveys to communities across the U.S., and received 700 replies (the cross-section was from communities with populations as small as 1,400 to as large as 1.5 million).  The results were presented at the recent annual meeting of the Solid Waste Association of North America. 

The results noted multiple benefits from the single-container program for recycling.  First, for residents, it is easier to manager.  Cost-savings were seen in many communities because they reduced pickups of recycling from once a week to twice a month [that would never work in my area where recycling containers are full within a week].  Having containers for yard waste also allowed for recycling [EPA estimates yard waste is 17% of solid waste]; some communities also had single containers for food waste [EPA estimates food waste is 7% of solid waste].  Highlighting Boulder's experience, it was noted that single-containers increased the collection of yard waste by 20% and of recycling by 7%.  Thus, the use of single-container systems offers a strategy to assist local communities increase the collection of recyclables items and yard waste, and reduce the volume of materials sent to landfills.

The results of the survey can be found at http://www.serainc.com/SERASummaryOfSolidWasteandRecyclingSurvey_v4.pdf.