Action Plans from EPA National Electronics Meeting

DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Action Plans from EPA National Electronics Meeting March 1-2, 2005 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT The Blueprint How the Collaborative Efforts Designed at the EPA National Electronics Meeting Support National Electronics Recycling Solutions The purpose of the EPA National Electronics Meeting, held March 1-2, 2005, in Washington, DC, was to create action plans for collaborative and scalable solutions that will immediately contribute to a comprehensive system for the management of used electronics across the country. By focusing now on collaborations that can be scaled up or replicated nationally, we aim to help overcome some of the negative effects of separate and unrelated programs that may unintentionally hamper markets, raise the costs of electronics recycling, and reduce the environmental benefits of electronics recycling. In planning the National Electronics Meeting, EPA looked to the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) for ideas on collaborative efforts that would support the advancement of national solutions for end-of-life electronics, regardless of how long it takes to reach a comprehensive national solution. NEPSI participants aimed to establish infrastructure that would support such a solution. The NEPSI dialogue yielded several ideas, including but not limited to: 1) creating an organization to manage the joint voluntary pilot recycling efforts of multiple manufacturers and/or their contributions to retailer or municipal collection pilots; 2) creating and disseminating educational materials on the need for electronics recycling; 3) gathering and analyzing data needed to better understand the electronics waste stream; and 4) defining and implementing standards for environmentally safe management of materials. AT THE NATIONAL ELECTRONICS MEETING, NEARLY 200 PARTICIPANTS FROM A WIDE RANGE OF ORGANIZATIONS TOOK THESE AND OTHER IDEAS, FLESHED THEM OUT AND DEVELOPED ACTION PLANS TO TAKE THESE COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS TO THE NEXT STEPS. PROJECTS DISCUSSED INCLUDED: • A private multi-state Third-Party Organization (TPO) to support electronics recycling efforts in the Pacific Northwest. The project will explore how a multi-state TPO could be formed and could function to assume responsibilities on behalf of manufacturers like contracting for recycling services across state lines. Standards for environmentally safe electronics recyclers and a process for certifying these recyclers. A Centralized Data Repository for Electronics Recycling to collect nationwide market data/share by manufacturers and provide information and status on national, state and local e-waste initiatives (provides data on waste, geographic summaries and process/implementation data). A National Clearinghouse to determine producer financial responsibility as defined by their contribution (market share) to the e-waste stream. A research project to examine the balance between the economic and environmental performance of the EOL electronics recycling supply-chain. Current and emerging procedures will be evaluated to guide industry best practices, potential legislation, and design for recycling. • • • • 1 DRAFT DOCUMENT • DRAFT DOCUMENT • • An Electronics Recycling Consortium to build infrastructure for collection, reuse, recycling of used electronics by leveraging resources of organizations already involved and disseminating information. It would employ best practices, education, industry research, and technology research. A Toolkit for states to use when considering or developing legislation and/or potentially national legislation. Toolkit could help to foster greater consistency from state to state. A report to assess the impacts of prison labor; documenting qualitative and quantitative data regarding prison ecycling activities on small business recyclers, taxpayers, environmental justice issues, labor and local communities. The above collaborative efforts are important steps towards creating scalable, replicable projects that can be part of national infrastructure for electronics recycling. We recognize, however, that even if key collaborations noted above are implemented, there may remain some gaps in needed infrastructure. In the course of developing, implementing, and sharing information related to key infrastructure-related collaborations, EPA looks forward to working with stakeholders to identify and plan to address other infrastructure-related efforts. Through www.plugintoecycling.org, EPA plans to exchange information with interested parties as the action plans move forward. We will also be distributing the transcribed flip charts for proposals/ideas that were not further developed in action planning sessions at the national meeting, including a list of people who expressed interest in these proposals. In doing so, we hope to keep the conversation going on other potential efforts of value to national infrastructure. 2 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Projects from Group “A” Coordinating Collections, Gathering Data, Evaluating Markets, Clearinghouses 3 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Project: Multi-State Third Party Organization (NW Demonstration and related National Center for Electronics Recycling Activities) Proposed by: David Nightingale, Washington State Department of Ecology, (360) 407-6392 Sego Jackson, Northwest Product Stewardship Council, (425) 388-6490 Jason Linnell, National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER), 304-374-8144 Project Description: Explore the feasibility of organizing and running a private multi-state Third-Party Organization (TPO) to support local electronics recycling efforts. The project will explore how a multi-state TPO could be formed and could function to assume responsibilities ranging from a data clearing house to contracting for recycling services, across state lines. Initial efforts will focus on research and a NW Demonstration, with the NCER working with stakeholders to ensure applicability to other regions and various interests. Picture of Success in 5 Years: • TPO operating on state and regional level • Increase in the efficiencies of electronics collection and recycling • Reporting standardization resulting in better data • Improved markets for the materials generated • Increase in the amount of material collected • Structure consolidation without monopolies • Harmonization of environmental handling standards • Development of a national infrastructure for collection/recycling Milestone Targets: Short term • Initiation of Phase 1 in the Pacific Northwest Medium Term • Implementation of Third Party Organization (state or regional) 6 Months • Northwest Demonstration Project launched • 10 Manufacturers committed • NCER Stakeholder Committee formed Recommended Actions to Start: What Who Workplan for TPO NCER, Northwest Steering Committee Recruit Members for NCER stakeholder group (NCER hosted) Get summary lesson learned Claudette Reed, EPA from R3 ecycling pilot Region 3 working across states By When By April 15, 2005 By April 15, 2005 By March 15, 2005 4 DRAFT DOCUMENT NCER initiate multistakeholder committees Secure commitments from 10 manufacturers Creation of website, multistate TPO information Creation of TPO factsheets (different sheets for different audiences) NCER Manufacturers NCER NCER, NW Steering Committee DRAFT DOCUMENT Within 2 months (by end of April 2005) April 15, 2005 April 15, 2005 May 15, 2005 Ongoing Leadership: Steering Committee for Northwest Pilot • Northwest Product Stewardship Council • NCER • Manufacturers who commit funding to NW Demonstration (at time of meeting the following manufacturers committed their support: Sharp, Sony, JVC, Philips, IBM, Panasonic) • Multi-stakeholder committee (to be organized by NCER) - EPA committed Following parties need to be recruited - NGOs - Recyclers, processors - Market Development representatives (i.e. American Plastics Council) - Retailers - State Governments (Garth Hickle, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance can clarify “who”and “how” - Local Governments - Manufacturers Contact Person to move this forward: NCER: Jason Linnell Multi-State Northwest TPO: Dave Nightingale Manufacturer Recruitment: Sego Jackson and Wayne Rifer Resources Going Forward: • Seeking Manufacturer Support for NW Pilot • Volunteers needed for time/input for NCER-hosted stakeholder committee • Short TPO analysis/models Meeting Participants Involved in Action Planning Session: Name Organization Garth Hickle Minnesota OEA Tim Mann Claudette Reed EPA Region 3 5 DRAFT DOCUMENT Joseph Nardone Buddy Graham Martha Sayre La Rue Williams Sego Jackson Pamela Brody-Heine Lynn Williams Holly Evans Scott Klag Clare Lindsay Frank Marella David Thompson Lisa Sepanski Ed Nevins Wayne Rifer Steven Wyatt Ray Moreau Katharine Osdoba Envirocycle Polymer Alliance Zone Snohomish County EPA Region 10 Consultant Metro Solid Waste/RecycPortland, Oregon US EPA Sharp Panasonic King County Solid Waste, WA JVC Rifer Environmental Computers & Education Corp. SWIX EPA DRAFT DOCUMENT Additional Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this project: Name Organization Suellen Mele WA Citizens for Resource Conservation Marc Pearl CERC Lynn Rubinstein NERC Heather Bowman HP Sheila Davis SVTC Verena Radulovic EPA Maria Socolof Abt Associates Mike Heth NXTcycle Doug Smith Sony Micah Chambless Electronic Recycling and Trading Steve Coe Virginia DEQ Ted Smith SVTC Jim Sheire Philips Mark Murray Californians Against Waste Conrad Melancon RMS Communications Neil Peters-Michaud Cascade Asset Managment Sarah Westervelt BAN Mac Bybee SWANA Earl Knudsen Westech Recyclers 6 DRAFT DOCUMENT Lloyd Hicks Chris Newman Tom Sipher John Anderson Clare Lindsay Rick Goss Monica Becker Sonya Breehey VitaStudios EPA Region 5 Thomson Toshiba EPA EIA RIT IPC- Assoc. Connecting Electronics Industries ORIGINAL PROPOSALS DRAFT DOCUMENT 1. Project Title Multi-State Third Party Organization Project: NW Demonstration and related NCER activities 2. Name of Lead Organization Joint – Washington State Department of Ecology, Northwest Product Stewardship Council and National Center for Electronics Recycling 3.Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information 7 DRAFT DOCUMENT Lead Name and Title: David Nightingale, WA Ecology Staff Names and Titles: Environmental Engineer Address:P.O. Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504 Tel: 360-407-6392 Email:dnig461@ecy.wa.gov Role(s) in Project: NW Demonstration lead Jason Linnell, NCER Executive Director 410 S. Meadville Road, Davisville, WV 26142 304-374-8144 jlinnell@electronicsrecycling.org NCER Activities lead DRAFT DOCUMENT 8 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? Several manufacturers have committed to being involved, and more are actively being recruited. Manufacturers are the key partners sought at this time for the NW demonstration. In addition to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Northwest Product Stewardship Council and the National Center for Electronics Recycling, the following additional partners are committed to the NW Demonstration: U.S. EPA Region 10, Polymer Alliance Zone/MARCEE project, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, King County Solid Waste Division (SWD), Snohomish County Solid Waste Division, Metro (Portland), City of Seattle, and the City of Tacoma. 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? Manufacturers have been contacted. Others have expressed an interest in observing and advising the NW Demonstration, applying the MS TPO concept to their regions, and participating in a broader effort to examine and expand the MS TPO through activities coordinated by the NCER. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? For manufacturers wishing to participate in the NW pilot, commitment of funding and time resources as described in section 7. Criteria for participating in the broader NCER MS TPO Project are still being developed for other stakeholders and recyclers. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The NW Demonstration Pilot and NCER will explore the feasibility of organizing and running a private multi-state Third-Party Organization (TPO) to support local electronics recycling efforts. The project will explore how a multi-state TPO could be formed and could function to assume responsibilities ranging from a data clearing house to contracting for recycling services, across state lines. Initial efforts will focus on research and a NW Demonstration, with the NCER working with stakeholders to ensure applicability to other regions and various interests. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. The purpose of this project is to investigate what is needed to establish a TPO and then, if feasible, to implement a limited-duration simulated TPO pilot program in the NW. This will be a means for manufacturers, local governments and recyclers to gain experience with the use of a TPO, and it is hoped this will eventually result in the permanent establishment of such an organization. The project report and TPO Business Plan will provide answers to many key questions regarding organizational structure, manufacturer involvement, legislative adoption and implementation of a TPO. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. A private TPO is one of the linchpins of both the NEPSI-style ARF proposal and of efforts to meet the responsibilities of many manufacturers working under a manufacturer responsibility scheme. This project will not be based on the presumption of any one or another form of system 9 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT funding. However, the implications of different system funding strategies will be actively explored. A private TPO can provide a range of critical services. Under an ARF, it could be the financial manager of the end-of-life infrastructure. Under a manufacturers’ responsibility scheme, it could be a tool for many manufacturers to fulfill their collective responsibilities. This multi-state effort will serve to create efficiencies in electronics recycling collection and recycling across state lines, harmonize cooperation or compliance with multiple state and local electronics recycling programs, model and demonstrate a pricing structure for a TPO that minimizes costs while ensuring sound environmental management, and create a means of sharing management responsibility for implementing recycling programs with industry. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. This project is being developed as a nationally scalable effort, with opportunities for national and multi-stakeholder input, beginning with the pilot project in the Northwest. If successful, this project could lead to the creation of national TPO to facilitate recycling programs in various regions or across the country. 4d. Geographic coverage of effort. If this effort is more local in scope, describe how this effort is scalable to a regional or national level AND plans for scaling. The initial stages of the demonstration will be limited to the Pacific Northwest due to the seed funding provided by EPA Region 10 to the Washington State Department of Ecology. As explained in 4c above, the project is intended to scale to a larger, multi-state or national effort. Plans for scaling will be completed after the initial research phase. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). The first Phase includes defining critical TPO functions and researching select critical questions and will be completed in 2005. The project team will determine which common TPO functions – data clearinghouse, fund manager, recycling/shipping contract manager, program publicizer, enforcer of fee collections and/or responsibilities against OEMs/importers – will be examined and which will be piloted in Phase Two. The pilot TPO will build on the existing infrastructure and not duplicate existing programs and efforts. Phase One will culminate in a consensus decision on whether it is technically, legally, and financially feasible to continue the project into Phases Two and Three. Phase Two will include simulation of a TPO using the defined critical functions, and Phase Three will develop a draft business plan and conclude with a determination on the technical, administrative, and legal feasibility of a permanent TPO in a final project report. If Phase Two is not undertaken, an abbreviated form of a Final Report will be produced at the end of Phase One. 5. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. The project will be organized with a three-part committee structure to maximize participation and input. For the Northwest demonstration, a Project Steering Committee will be formed to include a balance of representatives of the committed project partners and manufacturers who provide financial support. This leadership group will direct the research and writing and have 10 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT editorial control over the final recommendations and decisions. For the larger multi-state TPO effort, the NCER will organize an MSTPO project committee for interested stakeholders and an additional committee for recyclers. The project committee will provide input and comments on the progress of the NW pilot and develop plans for expanding the effort into other states or regions. The recycler committee will provide recycler input and comments. Information from the NW pilot will be shared through these NCER committee. 6. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. Currently committed resources: EPA Region 10 - $12,500 In-kind services: U.S. EPA Region 10, Washington Department of Ecology, Polymer Alliance Zone/MARCEE project, National Center for Electronics Recycling, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, King County Solid Waste Division (SWD), Snohomish County Solid Waste Division, Metro (Portland), City of Seattle, City of Tacoma , The NW Product Stewardship Council (NWPSC). Remaining Resources needed: • For the NW Demonstration, only manufacturers partners are sought as active participants at this time. Manufacturers are asked to commit $7000, and dedicate time and attention to the project, optionally including participation in the Steering Committee, and openness to considering providing matching resources, for example legal services, if requested by the Steering Committee. • • A top-end, overall budget of $80,000 - $100,000 will be adequate to effectively explore the issues identified for Phase One. Others interested in the NCER MS TPO activities, including participating on committees, should contact the NCER. 11 DRAFT DOCUMENT Project: Electronics Recycling Centralized Data Repository DRAFT DOCUMENT Proposed by: Jason Linnell, National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER), (304)374-8144 Project Description: The CDR is a national clearinghouse for electronics recycling data supporting public and private electronics recycling system development and operations. It is an open, collaborative public/private data sharing project built around the creation of several XML standards to aid in the sharing of data and results from electronics recycling efforts. The database would provide information on the status of national, state and local e-waste initiatives and would provide data on waste, geographic summaries of regional efforts, and process/implementation of collection and recycling programs. It could also collect nationwide market data/share by manufacturer (international vs. domestic sales, orphan products, percentage of white box sales to help define responsibility. Picture of Success in 5 Years: To have a national up-to-date and usable data repository that is used by almost all e-waste collection programs and recycling facilities across the country. Specific elements of the database include: • Uniform data entry interface • Unit level identifiers (make, model, SN, weight) • Online material declarations • Standardized reporting requirements (also WEEE requirements) • RFID/Barcoding • State laws and state data (volumes, contractors) • Brand data • Chain of ownership (corporate and product) • Cost data (program, recycler) • Lifespan data • Fair market value data • Usage measurement (reuse/recycling, system metrics) • Disposition of products and materials • Data security (secure participation, confidential data) • Data that develops a national system (evaluates system and evaluates recycling effectiveness) Milestone Targets: Short term -Establish project workplan and duties/next steps for diverse stakeholders. -Develop data definitions for content -Develop system architecture/framework Medium Term -Identify known data sources/data users. Develop data dictionary and finalize data model. -Multi-stakeholder Committee Development (identify Project Committee) -Work with Associations (manufacturers) -Work with Plug-In To eCycling pilot participants to gather all data 12 DRAFT DOCUMENT 6 Months -Establish project- scope, definitions, workplan -Establish category areas -Generate ties to certifications Recommended Actions to Start: What Who Project Workplan NCER • Definition of scope • Define resources, measurements, goals • Covers new proposal items Multi-Stakeholder Call NCER (lead) • Definition of focus • Define next steps • Define players and duties • Reaching out to other teams Finalize Workplan NCER • Finalize data model • Define/develop data dictionary • Identify known data sources • Identify data uses • Technology plan/architecture Ongoing Leadership: NCER- Walter Alcorn IAER/Recycler (truCycle): Todd Hill California Dept. of Toxic Substances: Peggy Harris Consultant (VitaStudios): Lloyd Hicks Industry Consultant (Strategic Counsell LLC): Holly Evans DN American (Technology Consultants: Jeff Tucker DRAFT DOCUMENT By When Draft in 30 days (beginning of April 2005) 45 Days (mid-April 2005) 90 days (beginning June 2005) Additional stakeholder commitment: The Centralized Data Repository (CDR)- the basis for this Action Plan- was initiated during 2004 as a joint activity of the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA), the EPA Plug-In to E-Cycling Pilots, the Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia and the MARCEE project. The first phase involved the creation of National Electronics Recycling Data Standards for collection activities and associated model reporting forms. This initial phase was executed through a collaborative effort of more than 40 government and industry representatives and produced a list of common data elements and definitions used in electronics recycling reporting and tracking systems (see 13 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT http://www.electronicsrecycling.com/DataStandards). Organizations represented in this effort include: Dell, HP, Canon USA, Intel, Computer Donation Management, Inc., EPA (OSW, ORD, Region I), HOPI, 5R Processors, Ltd, UOSA, Minnesota OEA, New Jersey DEP, Virginia DEQ and Department of General Services, Florida DEP, ISRI, ASTSWMO, Pace/Butler Corporation, IBM, Lexmark, Asset Recovery Corp, AnythingIT Inc., Colorado Governor’s Office of Energy Management and Conservation, NJIT, Gordon Institute, CEA, EIA, United Recycling, Verizon, ITIC, Freedom Electronics Recycling, SWANA, and Washington State Department of Ecology. Contact Person to move this forward: Jason Linnell, NCER Executive Director, (304) 374-8144 Resources Going Forward: MARCEE/NCER - $100,000 In-kind services: • U.S. EPA Region Office of Solid Waste (Plug-In) • Washington Department of Ecology • Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia • Florida DEP Resources Needed: • Data - Anyone conducting electronics collection and recycling efforts across the U.S. is encouraged to submit data to the CDR. • Commitment of Time – Stakeholders interested in the CDR will be asked to take part in periodic CDR project committee conference calls organized by the NCER. Meeting Participants Involved in Action Planning Session: Name Organization Additional Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this project: Name Organization Sego Jackson Snohomish County Henry Garcia GRC Wireless Recycling Raoul Clarke Florida DEP Micah Chambliss Electronics Recycling and Trading Ted Smith SVTC Courtney Murrill Goodwill Karen Richardson EPA Willie Cade Computers for Schools 14 DRAFT DOCUMENT Jeremy Gregory Al Chaney Garth Hickle Rodney Clara Rick Goss Greg King Terri Goldberg Seth Heine Ed Nevins Mark Murray Wendy Plant Jim Webster Grant Mydland Claudette Reed Steve Coe Pat Frank Frank Marella Neil Peters Michaud Verena Radulovic Tom Sipher Craig Lorch Mark Leff Aaron Ezroj Tricia Conroy Paula Prahl Heather Bowman Sonya Breehey Chris Newman Sarah Westervelt Peter Bennison Mike Heth Scott Klag Craig Boswell Michael George Kevin Johnson Lynn Williams Staci Gatica Jim Puckett Heather Knierim Steve Hirsch Marilyn Goode Ted Campbell MIT Computer Recycling for Education Minnesota OEA Goodwill EIA Supply Chain Services NEWMOA Collective Good JVC Californians Against Waste Creative Recycling RBRC CompTIA EPA Region 3 Virginia DEQ Global Investment Recovery Sharp Cascade Asset Management EPA Thomson Total Reclaim GRC Wireless Recycling EPA E4 Partners Best Buy HP IPC EPA Region 5 BAN Waste Mgmt & Recycling Products, Inc. Nxtcycle Metro Solid Waste/Recycling- Portland, OR HOBI Ricoh Target EPA Region 10 EPA BAN ISRI EPA South Carolina DRAFT DOCUMENT 15 DRAFT DOCUMENT Peggy Harris Linda Middleton Hillary Miller Ray Moreau Lloyd Hicks Todd Hill David Thompson Kara Reeve Chaz Miller Marc Pearl Doug Blackley Jay Slater Kathy Osdoba Pete Muscanelli Earl Knudsen Monica Becker Doug Smith Sheila Davis James Ewell John Anderson Maria Socolof California NEC/Mitsubishi Maryland DOE SWIX VitaStudios IAER/trucycle Panasonic Clean Water Action Nat. Solid Waste Mmgt Assoc. CERC Technology Conservation Group Chasm Industries EPA IAER Westech Recyclers RIT Sony SVTC MBDC Toshiba Abt Associates, Inc. ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 1. 2. 3. DRAFT DOCUMENT Project Title: Electronics Recycling Centralized Data Repository Name of Lead Organization : National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER) Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Jason Linnell, NCER Executive Director Staff Names and Titles: Jeff Tucker, DN American Technology Lead Walter Alcorn, Alcorn Consulting Technical Support Address: 410 S. Meadville Road, Davisville, WV 26142 Telephone: 304-374-8144 Email: jlinnell@electronicsrecycling.org 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? The Centralized Data Repository (CDR) was initiated during 2004 as a joint activity of the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA), the EPA Plug-In to E-Cycling Pilots, the Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia and the MARCEE project. The first phase involved the creation of National Electronics Recycling Data Standards for collection activities and associated model reporting forms. This initial phase was executing through a collaborative effort of more than 40 government and industry representatives and produced a list of common data elements and 16 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT definitions used in electronics recycling reporting and tracking systems (see http://www.electronicsrecycling.com/DataStandards). Organizations represented in this effort include: Dell, HP, Canon USA, Intel, Computer Donation Management, Inc., EPA (OSW, ORD, Region I), HOPI, 5R Processors, Ltd, UOSA, Minnesota OEA, New Jersey DEP, Virginia DEQ and Department of General Services, Florida DEP, ISRI, ASTSWMO, Pace/Butler Corporation, IBM, Lexmark, Asset Recovery Corp, AnythingIT Inc., Colorado Governor’s Office of Energy Management and Conservation, NJIT, Gordon Institute, CEA, EIA, United Recycling, Verizon, ITIC, Freedom Electronics Recycling, SWANA, and Washington State Department of Ecology. On February 3, 2005 more than 20 electronics manufacturers participated in a conference call to form the National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER), which is now providing the guidance and leadership for CDR management and development. Through the NCER several manufacturers have committed to being involved in data gathering activities, and more are actively being recruited. 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? Participants in the previous Data Standards initiative have received updated versions of the model data forms that will help populate the CDR. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? The NCER seeks to collaborate with groups that have electronics recycling data and/or have uses for electronics recycling data, and representatives of both groupings interested in developing more efficient ways of exchanging information. Specifically, the NCER seeks participation with representatives of the following groups: • Holders of electronics recycling data that could be shared publicly, including data on localized electronics collection efforts such as volumes by product type, costs, brands, etc. • Developers and operators of electronics recycling programs and systems interested in using data from the CDR (to help guide Quality Assurance procedures and development of automated reports) • Holders and users of electronics recycling data interested in exploring automated information exchange tools using XML The NCER will take all necessary measures to protect any data that is deemed confidential. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The CDR is a national clearinghouse for electronics recycling data supporting public and private electronics recycling system development and operations. It is an open, collaborative public/private data sharing project built around the creation of several XML standards to aid in the sharing of data and results from electronics recycling efforts. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. This project seeks to provide the online forum for submitting and retrieving up-to-date information on the collection and recycling of electronic waste. The CDR is expected to serve as the primary source for establishment of a national electronics recycling baseline as called for during the Interim System recommendations developed during the NEPSI process. It will also assist in comparing local and state electronics recycling program performance. 17 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. There is currently no authoritative and comprehensive data on the quantity of electronic waste that is collected and recycled in the U.S. Determining key information about electronics recycling in the U.S. is hampered by the lack of common data standards and a centralized information exchange location. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. This project is being developed as a nationally scalable effort; beginning with data submitted by more than a dozen programs working through EPA’s Plug-In To eCycling pilots. Good, readily available data is critical in forming the approach for any logical and efficient national electronics recycling system. For more detail on the technical infrastructure associated with this effort, see the paper presented at the 2004 ISEE conference “Development of XML Industry Standards for Information Exchange and Commerce” (J. Tucker, W. Alcorn, K. Osdoba). 4d. Geographic coverage of effort. If this effort is more local in scope, describe how this effort is scalable to a regional or national level AND plans for scaling. The CDR combines local-, state- and national-level information into a centralized national database. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). The first Phase in developing National Data Standards for collection activities and model forms for collection of that data has been completed. A prototype CDR web site is also available at www.electronicsrecycling.org/cdr. Building upon interest among several manufacturers in the CDR concept, the NCER will organize a CDR project committee for interested stakeholders. This committee will provide guidance on data to be collected, automated reports to be developed and oversee implementation of technical XML standards. The committee will reach out to groups with electronics recycling data and encourage submission of those data and use of the CDR. 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. This will be a very visible project with results assembled and posted at http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/cdr/. Measurement of project results will be done through the number of hits to this web site, the number of reports generated and feedback from the NCER CDR project committee participants. 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. Currently committed resources: MARCEE/NCER - $100,000 In-kind services: • U.S. EPA Region Office of Solid Waste (Plug-In) • Washington Department of Ecology • Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia • Florida DEP Remaining Resources needed: • Data - Anyone conducting electronics collection and recycling efforts across the U.S. is encouraged to submit data to the CDR. Commitment of Time – Stakeholders interested in the CDR will be asked to take part in periodic CDR project committee conference 18 • DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT calls organized by the NCER. 19 DRAFT DOCUMENT Project: Electronics Recycling Consortium DRAFT DOCUMENT Proposed by: Peter Muscanelli, International Association for Electronics Recyclers (IAER), (888) 989-4237 Nabil Nasr, Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies, RIT, (585) 475-5106 Project Description: Build infrastructure for collection, reuse and recycling of used electronics by leveraging resources of organizations already involved. It would identify best practices, education, industry research, technology research. In benchmarking other industries, we can learn from successful business models in other industries what might be applicable to a national program for electronics (eg. Automotive, steel). Picture of Success in 5 Years: Best Practices: - Total Accountability of where materials go - Uniformity in Standards Education: - Increase in recyclers with defined processes that are informed of stardards - Increase in consumer education re: the ecobenefits of recycling - Public awareness at elementary schools Research/Industry: - Existence and use of reporting mechanisms to record volumes/type of ewaste - Research community and industry generating accurate data. Research/Technology: Milestone Targets: Short term Medium Term • Work with certification team & EPA on assessing standards/certification for electronics recyclers 6 Months • Identify Best Practices • Expand current education offerings (e.g. recycler curriculum) Recommended Actions to Start: What Who Best practices IAER, RIT, NY State • Work with recycler certification team and EPA • Get additional stakeholder involvement (EU, China, Japan) By When Within 6 months (By September 2005) 20 DRAFT DOCUMENT Research current standards Education • Expand current recycler curriculum • Expand offering of IAER classes • Develop team to create a plan and strategy for elementary school education (in coordination with NCER) • DRAFT DOCUMENT IAER, Union College Within 6 months (by September 2005) Research and Technology IAER, RIT • Template that explains dismantling and recycling procedures • Provide feedback to OEMS on improvements for reuse/recycling/ Remanufacturing IAER • Update industry report • Coordinate efforts RIT with EPEAT and NCER Ongoing Leadership IAER RIT Contact Person to move this forward: Pete Muscanelli, IAER, Monica Becker, RIT Within 6 months (by September 2005) Resources Going Forward: To establish an Electronics Recycling Consortium will require initial/seed money funding to start up the key elements of the proposed mission. The initial participants will provide some in-kind support for the start-up by extension of their existing activities. Since 1997, RIT’s work in this area has been supported by New York State Empire State Development and New York State Office of Science, Technology and Academic Research. The work described in this proposal is an extension of these efforts. In addition, some seed funding support is expected from New York State in support of the proposed activities of the Consortium. Funding and resource requirements 21 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT for the implementation and operation of the Consortium will be developed as part of the organization of the collaboration. Meeting Participants Involved in Action Planning Session: Name Organization Henry Garcia GRC Wireless Recycling Georgiana Ball Virginia James Ewell MBDC Jay Slater Chasm Industries Monica Becker RIT Harry Gregory Environmental Solutions, Inc. Jonathon Latko Temple University Sheila Davis SVTC Bob Harris BDC Electro Lynn Rubinstein NERC Additional Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this project: Name Organization Raoul Clarke Florida DEQ Peter Bennison Waste Management and Recycling Products, Inc. Robin Schneider Texas Campaign for the Environment Chris Newman EPA Region 5 Micah Chambliss Electronics Recycling and Trading Ali O’Donnell Sears Roebuck Sonya Breehey IPC Mick Schum We Recycle! Kevin Johnson Target Greg King Supply-Chain Services, Inc. Stephanie Craver National Safety Council Todd Hill IAER/truCycle ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 1. 2. Project Title: Electronics Recycling Consortium Name of Lead Organization International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER) And The National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery (NC3R) at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) Project Staffing 22 3. DRAFT DOCUMENT 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information IAER Lead Name and Title: Peter R. Muscanelli Staff Names and Titles: IAER President P.O. Box 16222 Albany, NY 12212 Tel: 888-989-IAER (4237) Email: info@IAER.org Role(s) in Project: Co-Sponsors Address: DRAFT DOCUMENT RIT Nabil Nasr Director, Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies 111 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623 (585) 475-5106 nasr@reman.rit.edu 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? International Electronics Recyclers Institute (IERI) Remanufacturing Industries Council Union College 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? New York State Agencies and federal legislators 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Resources, skills and experiences that can contribute to the activities and objectives of the Consortium (as noted below). The Consortium welcomes collaboration with other national and international entities involved in these areas. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The proposed Electronics Recycling Consortium is a collaborative effort to help build an effective and efficient infrastructure for the collection, reuse and recycling of used and obsolete electronic products by leveraging the resources, skills and experiences of organizations already involved in and committed to the objective. It is proposed that the scope of the Consortium’s activities encompass: Standards, Best Practices & Certification Technology Dissemination, Education & Training Industry Research Technology Research 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. 1. Establish a process for certifying electronics recyclers that is recognized and accepted by all major stakeholder groups. 2. Provide timely and useful education, training and information dissemination on electronics recycling and related technology advances. 3. Provide comprehensive data and trends on the electronics recycling industry. 4. Develop advances in electronics recycling technology that improve the efficiencies and cost effectiveness of operational processes. 23 1. 2. 3. 4. DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. • Addresses the recommendations from the NEPSI process in relation to establishing criteria and a process for certifying electronics recyclers. • Fosters the Education and Training on electronics recycling as well as the dissemination of advances in the technology. • Supports Industry Research as the authoritative source of data and trends for the electronics recycling industry – nation-wide. • Supports Technology Research that will advance the state-of-the-art in a number of key areas of challenge and opportunity for the electronics recycling industry – with an emphasis on optimizing processes for remanufacturing and reuse. The knowledge and know-how developed from technology research of electronics recycling processes can be a valuable input to the EPEAT “design templates”. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. The proposed activities of the Consortium are all key elements in building an effective and efficient infrastructure in electronics recycling. • Standards, Best Practices & Certification • Technology Dissemination, Education & Training • Industry Research • Technology Research 4d. Geographic coverage of effort. If this effort is more local in scope, describe how this effort is scalable to a regional or national level AND plans for scaling. The initial resources committed to start-up the Consortium are based in the State of New York, but the proposed activities and projects are designed and intended to support nation-wide needs. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). a. March 2005: Establish a Leadership Team of participants and stakeholders to develop a Plan and priorities for the Consortium. b. April – June 2005: 1. Obtain seed funding for the organization and start-up of the Consortium. 2. Develop a Plan and Priorities for the Consortium • July – September 2005: Organize and initial projects for each of the focus areas of activity for the Consortium • September 2005: Identify funding requirements for the implementation each of the focus areas of activity for the Consortium 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. a. Use the Leadership Team to establish a consensus on objectives, priorities, and specific targets. 24 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT b. Monitor and report progress on projects and programs to the Leadership Team. c. Establish a public web site for posting project plans, progress reports and results. d. Present reports on activities as well as educational programs in conjunction with national events – including the annual Electronics Recycling SUMMIT. 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. To establish an Electronics Recycling Consortium will require initial/seed money funding to start up the key elements of the proposed mission. The initial participants will provide some in-kind support for the start-up by extension of their existing activities. Since 1997, RIT’s work in this area has been supported by New York State Empire State Development and New York State Office of Science, Technology and Academic Research. The work described in this proposal is an extension of these efforts. In addition, some seed funding support is expected from New York State in support of the proposed activities of the Consortium. Funding and resource requirements for the implementation and operation of the Consortium will be developed as part of the organization of the collaboration. 25 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Project Idea: National Clearinghouse (NCH) Proposed by: Lloyd Hicks, VitaStudios Project Description: National Clearinghouse (NCH) to determine producer financial responsibility as defined by their contribution, or market share, to the e-waste stream. It would allow a model for products to demonstrate CSR. Picture of Success in 5 Years: Organization, not government, would administer NCH: Form and budgetary share, advisory board, Executive Director would be established. Milestone Targets: Short term Medium Term 6 Months Recommended Actions to Start: What Who By When Ongoing Leadership Contact Person to move this forward: Resources Going Forward: Meeting Participants Involved in Action Planning Session: Name Organization Contact Information Lloyd Hicks VitaStudios Shane Thompson RBRC Linda Middleton NEC/Mitsubishi Additional Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this project: Name Organization Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Steve Hirsch ISRI Mark Murray Californians Against Waste Verena Radulovic EPA Lynn Rubinstein NERC Theresa Steiner Iowa Dept. Nat. Resources Todd Hill IAER/tricycle 26 DRAFT DOCUMENT Tom Sipher Chaz Miller Monica Becker Jason Linnell Sheila Davis Kathy Osdoba Heather Bowman John Anderson Maria Socolof Sego Jackson Georgiana Ball Thomson Nat. Solid Wastes Mgmt. Assoc. RIT NCER SVTC EPA HP Toshiba Abt Associates, Inc. Snohomish County Virginia Dept. Gen. Services- Recycling ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 1.Project Title Formation of a national clearinghouse (NCH) 2. Name of Lead Organization TBD- Proposed by Lloyd Hicks, Consultant, VitaStudios 3.Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Staff Names and Titles: Address: TBD Tel: Email: Role(s) in Project: DRAFT DOCUMENT 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? TBD 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? TBD 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Willingness is needed to consider a shared responsibility system, shared by both producers and municipalities, as opposed to an advanced recycling fee (ARF) system. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). 27 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT A national clearinghouse (NCH) shall be created to establish a system for producers to register the share of products put on the market in each US state. Either voluntarily or by mandate, producers then collect and recycle like e-waste, according to her pro rata share of the market for that product category. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. A goal is to make publicly available producer efforts towards collecting and recycling ewaste in each US state. Moreover, to minimize the amount of hazardous waste going into landfills. Waste collected by retailers, municipalities, and regions shall be picked up and recycled from sites in a timely manner. Individual producer activities, e.g. returns by mail and product leasing, shall also be recognized. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. Presently, there is no measure to determine if voluntary efforts by producers are making progress towards environmental goals concerning e-waste. Only a number of states have created or have pending legislation on e-waste, and a NCH encourages activities to begin in each state. Furthermore, the system set-up encourages individual producer responsibility for a share of e-waste. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. In each US state, an effort should be made by local governments to establish collection points, and/or retailers to make arrangements with producers for collections. Producers should choose to work in every state towards recycling a share of the waste collected, at least according to her pro rata share of the market. 4d. Geographic coverage of effort. If this effort is more local in scope, describe how this effort is scalable to a regional or national level AND plans for scaling. This is a national level effort, and each state government will be encouraged to establish collection sites across the state. Retailers in each state may also partner with producers and/or multiple-producer contracted third party organizations (TPOs) to collect e-waste. In this case, TPOs are a consortium of producers to help achieve economies of scale. The NCH is a centralized interface that is needed by all participants for successful operation of a comprehensive national system. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). A NCH should be established, and collection sites and/or retailers should prepare to report quantities of collected e-waste to the NCH. At the same time, state and local governments and/or retailers should create awareness campaigns about the availability of collection points to customers. State authorities perform permitting and monitoring of take-back operators, and shall seek to prevent any hazardous waste shipments abroad. Concerns over “cherry-picking” e-waste should be addressed – a European solution already exists. A project timeframe is contingent on more dialogue with stakeholders. 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. 28 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Recycling activities by producers and/or TPOs are publicly accessible nationally, and for each state. If voluntary, the level of participation reflects the level of importance attributed to human and environmental health. If mandatory, collection targets shall be met either by individual producers or TPOs under contract of a producer. 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. If supported by stakeholders, the EPA may take a lead on commissioning a company for operation of a NCH. All others for collaboration are to be discovered. 29 DRAFT DOCUMENT Projects from Group “B” Outreach and Education* DRAFT DOCUMENT *Numerous proposals were submitted prior to and at the meeting that garnered interest and support. None, however, were specifically slated by the participants for action planning. Please view the proposals to see which stakeholders expressed an interest in them. We encourage those interested in working on the proposed ideas to collaborate with other stakeholders and develop next steps. 30 DRAFT DOCUMENT Project from Group “C” Electronics Recycling Certification DRAFT DOCUMENT 31 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Project Idea: Certification of Electronics Recyclers/Recycling Audit Proposed by: Consolidation of Proposals by IAER, CHWMEG, additional ideas submitted by various tables during the Meeting. Project Description: Develop uniform certification process that has international recognition. The objectives include: • Identifying reputable, qualified e-recyclers to meet the needs of a national program • Give information to ultimate decision-makers, recognizing that some information cannot be covered by certification program • Give value to the whole process of electronics recycling (to activities by regulators, business partners, recyclers, consumers) • Close off cost externalization • Develop highest environmental standard(s)/social standard(s); potentially create different levels of certification so that choices exist within recycling community • Develop clarity on what elements are currently absent to shape a certification process • Understand and avoid risk • Develop a common list of criteria and attributes • Define terms and scope, domestic and international Picture of Success in 5 Years: A comprehensive certification program would be in place aimed at informing governments, businesses, and consumers. All e-recyclers would place at some level within the tiered certification system, giving users more options. A list of e-recyclers would be publicly available. Community programs would require recyclers to be certified. Legal and scientific basis would be provided where necessary. The certification system would be market-driven (consumer and purchaser-driven) and include auditing/due diligence. It would not be a cost burden to small businesses. Financial and educational resources would be readily available. Milestone Targets: Short term/Medium Term • Determine EPA’s Role • Put a team together to work on this project • Establish criteria/levels/CTC • Determine regulatory constraints (national and international) • Achieve stakeholder recognition; marketing plan for adoption • Identify science questions • Benchmark what kind of certification program(s) & standards development process(es) already exist • Identify Key stakeholders to be involved in group • Identify Institutional home for certification program • Do market analysis • Consider adopting ANSI accredited process 6 Months 32 DRAFT DOCUMENT Recommended Actions to Start: What Who By When DRAFT DOCUMENT Ongoing Leadership The following stakeholders should be involved: recyclers, retailers, NGOs, waste generators/institutional purchasers, EPA-OSWER, manufacturers, state and local governments (purchasers and environmental staff), NE and NW TPO Pilot participants, collectors, Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) representative. During the action planning session, the following participants were identified as leads: Trade Associations, universities- Jeff Sacre, CWMEG NGOs - Sarah Westervelt, BAN/CTBC Recyclers Associations- John Powers, IAER Steve Hirsch, ISRI Small Recycler- Mick Schum, WeRecycle! Recyclers- Micah Chambless, Electronics Recycling & Trading - Wendy Plant, Creative Recycling - Mike Heth, Nxtcycle - Todd Hill, Truecycle Consumer Retailers- Marc Pearl, CERC Prison recycling- Cyndi Kidd, UNICOR Federal Government- Bob Tonetti, EPA OSW FEC representative: TBD (possibly Viccy Salazar or Chris Newman) State Government- Hilary Miller, Maryland Dept. of Environment Trade Association- Grant Mydland, CompTIA Manufacturers- Rick Goss, Electronic Industries Alliance Heath Care Procurement TPO- Mamta Khanna, Health Care Without Harm Contact Person to move this forward: TBD- EPA committed to helping convene stakeholders Resources Going Forward: TBD Meeting Participants Involved in Action Planning Session A substantial amount of participants and observers signed up to work on the action plan that was not all captured during the planning session. If you haven’t done so already, please contact the project leads to get involved. Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this project: Name Ted Campbell Bob Harris Organization South Carolina Dept of Commerce BDC Electro 33 DRAFT DOCUMENT Brenda Tongotti Doug Blackley Tom Sipher Maria Socolof Richard Pastor Viccy Salazar Steve Hirsch Micah Chambliss J. Ray Kirby Peter Bennison Juan Lopez Heather Bowman Wendy Plant Jay Slater Sheila Davis Monica Becker Mick Schum Chris Newman Bob Tonetti James Gardner Todd Hill Lauren Roman Rodney Clara Sego Jackson Willie Cade Harry Gregori Allen Wilson Jonathon Latko Cynthia Keidel Pamela Brody-Heine Steve Skurnac Andy Niles Steve Coe Scott Klag Ted Smith Henry Garcia Wayne Rifer Grant Mydland Verena Radulovic Pat Frank Sarah Westervelt Courtney Murrill Sonya Breehey Lynn Williams Teck ComincoMetals, Ltd Technology Conservation Group Recycling Thomson Abt Associates, Inc. Wal-Mart EPA Region 10 ISRI ERT Polymer Alliance Zone (Consultant) Waste Mgmt and Recycling Products, Inc. OFEE HP Creative Recycling Chasm Industries SVTC RIT WeRecycle! EPA Region 5 EPA Metech International IAER/truCycle United Recycling Goodwill Snohomish County Computers for Schools Environmental Solutions, Inc. Intel Temple University UNICOR Brody-Heine Consulting Noranda Recycling, Inc. Scientific Recycling, Inc. Virginia DEQ Metro County, Portland, OR SVTC GRC Wireless Recycling Rifer Environmental CompTIA EPA Global Investment Recovery BAN Goodwill IPC EPA Region 10 DRAFT DOCUMENT 34 DRAFT DOCUMENT James Ewell Suellen Mele Scott Pencer Joe Nardone Raoul Clarke Kathy Osdoba Earl Kundsen Pete Muscanelli MBDC WA Citizens for Resource Conservation Noranda Recycling, Inc. Envirocycle Florida DEP EPA Westech Recyclers, Inc. IAER ORIGINAL PROPOSALS 1. Project Title: Certification of Electronics Recyclers 2. Name of Lead Organization International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER) 3. DRAFT DOCUMENT Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: John Powers Staff Names and Titles: Consultant Address: c/o IAER – P.O. Box 16222 – Albany, NY 12212-6222 Tel: (401) 792-0155 Email: jhpowers@attglobal.net Role(s) in Project: Project Manager 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? - Federal Electronics Challenge Program - Office of the Federal Environmental Executive - International Electronics Recyclers Institute (IERI) 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Solid Waste - Various Electronics Manufacturers (OEMs) 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Willingness to work with the IAER to use, enhance and promote the IAER Certification process to identify reputable and qualified electronics recyclers that meet the needs of the stakeholders in a national electronics recycling program. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). 35 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT The IAER developed and implemented the first and only 3rd part audit process for certification that is uniquely tailored to the electronics recycling industry – with input and review from OEMs, the EPA and NGOs as well as the electronics recycling industry. The IAER proposes that the recommended objectives from the NEPSI process to establish “environmentally sound management criteria and … a system for certifying reuse/recycling vendors” can be satisfied by the existing IAER Certification process. (Note: Certified Electronics Recycler® is a registered trademark of the IAER) 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. Engage relevant stakeholder groups to evaluate and enhance the IAER certification process to meet the needs of the proposed national program for the collection and recycling of used electronics. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. As a result of the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) it was recommended that the following tasks are needed to support a national ecycling infrastructure: • “Identify recycling criteria to prevent sham recycling (using OECD and industry standards as guides). • Incorporate environmentally sound management criteria and, if reasonable, a system for certifying reuse/recycling vendors. • Develop pre-qualified/certified recycling vendor lists.” The existing IAER Certification process already meets these needs and can easily be adapted to support a national program. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. The objectives of the IAER certification process are to: • support and promote high standards of environmental quality and regulatory compliance as well as high quality business practices in the electronics recycling industry. • serve the needs of customers and stakeholders to identify electronics recyclers that meets their requirements for reputable service providers. • provide an objective third party auditing process against a recognized industry standard. Such standard criteria and objective certification process are essential to assure a uniform and reliable approach to recycling electronics in a national program. 4d. Geographic coverage of effort. If this effort is more local in scope, describe how this effort is scalable to a regional or national level AND plans for scaling. The existing IAER Certification process has already been implemented throughout the U.S. and is supported by one of the largest and most recognized 3rd party auditors with resources available to conduct audits in every state (as well as internationally) - BVQI. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e., communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). 36 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT a. March 2, 2005 – Consensus support of National Electronics Meeting to pursue the proposed project b. May 19, 2005 – EPA-sponsored Workshop on “Management Systems for Electronics Recyclers” – commitments from electronics recyclers to “gap audits” c. April-June, 2005 – EPA on-site observation of IAER Certification Audit d. June-September, 2005 – Review and benchmarking of IAER Certification Process in relation to other existing and proposed criteria for the selection and certification of electronics recyclers (e.g., Plug-In, FEC, READ, California, NEPSI, OEMs) e. October-December, 2005 – Modification and enhancement of IAER Certification process (Standard, Pre-Screening Questionnaire, Audit Checklist, Certification Guidance) to meet the needs of a national program for electronics recycling. f. January, 2006 – Acknowledgement of the IAER Certification Process as acceptable for the selection and qualification of electronics recyclers participating in the national program for electronics recycling. 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. a. Establishment of a Joint Certification Team comprised of representatives of relevant stakeholder groups (e.g., EPA, FEC, OEMs) as well as the IAER Standards & Certification Committee. b. Tracking and reporting of activities and progress by the Joint Certification Team. c. Targets: – 3 “gap audits” of electronics recyclers – by September, 2005 – 3 new certifications to IAER Standard – by year-end 2005 – Modified IAER Certification Process - by year-end 2005 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. • The IAER has an established Committee on Standards and Certification with broad representation from the electronics recycling industry that is prepared to work with stakeholder groups to enhance the process to meet the needs of a national program. • Participation in the IAER Certification Program by the EPA (Headquarters and Regions), FEC (OFEE) as well as customer groups (e.g., OEMs) is needed to obtain “buy-in” and support for using this process for a national ecycling program. **Additional Proposals and Ideas were submitted at the meeting that helped shape this action plan. A synopsis of those ideas will be included shortly in forthcoming materials** 37 DRAFT DOCUMENT Projects from Group “D” DRAFT DOCUMENT Other Proposed Projects (Research-Oriented, Specific Initiatives, Models/Codes, etc.) 38 DRAFT DOCUMENT Project Idea: Assessing Impacts of Prison Labor Proposed by: Computer Takeback Campaign DRAFT DOCUMENT Project Description: Document qualitative and quantitative data regarding Federal Prison Industries and other prison and corrections ecycling activities on: • Small business recyclers • Taxpayers • Environmental, Environmental Justice • Labor • Local Communities Picture of Success in 5 Years: Milestone Targets: Short term Identify key partners Medium Term Establish Methodologies for Data Research and Data Collection 6 Months+ Writing and Review Distribution and Recommendations/ Next Steps Measuring and Sharing Results: -Briefings of Findings - Report release to decision makers - Intensive Outreach and Education to affected constituencies Recommended Actions to Start: What Who By When Ongoing Leadership Contact Person to move this forward: Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Computer Takeback Campaign- Sheila Davis, 408-287-6707 Gopal Dayaneni, 408-287-6707 Resources Going Forward: CTBC: $5000 initial and staff/capacity Needed: $25,000 and partners 39 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Meeting Participants Involved in Action Planning Session: Name Organization Many of those involved in the Action Planning Session are listed below but were not all captured at the meeting. Please contact the Additional Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this project: Name Organization Steve Hirsch ISRI Kara Reeve Clean Water Action Staci Gatica EPA Craig Lorch Total Reclaim, Inc. Sheila Davis SVTC Pete Muscanelli IAER Karen Richardson EPA Wayne Rifer Riger Environmental Robin Schneider Texas Campaign for the Environment Elizabeth Grossman Pat Frank Global Investment Recovery, Inc. Sego Jackson Snohomish County Jim Lynch CompuMentor Jim Puckett BAN Sarah Westervelt BAN Andy Niles Scientific Recycling, Inc. ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 1. Project Title Assessing the Negative Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of the Use of Prison Labor in Electronic Demanufacturing and Recycling on Private Sector Recyclers, Workers, Government and the General Public. 2. Name of Lead Organization Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Computer TakeBack Campaign Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Sheila Davis, Program Director Staff Names and Titles: Gopal Dayaneni, Communications Address: 760 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112 3. gopald@svtc.org 40 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved in your project? The project will involve staff of the member organizations of the Computer TakeBack Campaign. Additionally, we will work with private sector recyclers who have signed the Electronics Recycler’s Pledge of True Stewardship and local, state and national level legislators concerned about these issues, such as Rep. Hoeksrta of Michigan. 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? We have worked with occupational health and safety specialists in the past on these issues and will continue to do so. We have also collaborated with labor unions and will seek out a broad collaboration of labor, environmental, business and governmental interests. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? A desire to determine the impacts (economic, social and environmental) of prison labor, including FPI/UNICOR Recycling Business Group, when used to handle electronic waste. A commitment to maximizing the positive impacts of electronic waste recycling. Approval by the CTBC steering committee. 4. Project Description. With greater involvement by corrections/prison labor and the Federal Prison Industries in electronic recycling, and growing concerns over unfair competition of FPI with small business recyclers due to such factors as exemptions from wage and labor laws and some level of taxpayer subsidy through shared infrastructure, a comprehensive study of these impacts is timely. In addition to these economic concerns, conducting recycling operations in a prison setting raises environmental, environmental justice and labor questions worthy of investigation. This collaboration would result in a document with qualitative and quantitative data on FPI’s Recycling Business Group and other corrections/prison labor programs related to e-waste. Private recyclers will be invited to provide documentation of incidents whereby they have lost business or had to significantly adjust their practices as a result of unfair competition from prison labor based programs. We will also research and analyze the economic and environmental impacts of prison/corrections e-waste operation on local communities, in comparison to communities in which private operations are located. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. The purpose of this project is to provide concrete, well researched data on use of corrections and prison labor, including FPI Recycling Group, that can inform local, state, national, industry and non-governmental decision makers in determining what role, if any, UNICOR and other programs using prison labor should have in the handling of ewaste. Deleted: 41 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. UNICOR is a unique player in electronic recycling, as both a commercial enterprise of the Department of Justice and an institution that operates under different rules than the private sector. Other e-waste programs using corrections or prison labor also need to be critically examined. The impact of these activities on private businesses, economic development, environmental justice, worker health, and the environment have not been adequately examined. There remains much confusion about the impacts and issues pertaining to prison labor processing of electronics. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. Cataloguing the externalized costs, including economic and job losses and hidden costs to taxpayers of UNICOR and other operations involving corrections/prison labor will be of service to local, state, national, industry, NGO and other governmental decision makers in establishing standards and policies. Currently, decision makers are unable to fully account for the externalized costs of these operations. The loss of contracts by private sector recyclers to UNICOR or businesses using corrections/prison labor is believed to be a threat to private recyclers, especially those practicing high ESM standards, and damages their business opportunities and investments. This limits economic development and creation of domestic private sector jobs, businesses and infrastructure to address the e-waste problem. Documenting incidents of business lost by the private sector as a result of unfair competition from prison labor will help bring about resolution of this situation. 4d. Geographic coverage of effort. If this effort is more local in scope, describe how this effort is scalable to a regional or national level AND plans for scaling. This project is national in scope, as prison/corrections labor are used nationwide and UNICOR operates nationally, however, the findings of this study will inform decision makers at all levels. 8. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). 1. Identify key partners from diverse constituencies. 2. Establish methodologies for data collection. 3.Research and data collection. 4. Writing, review. 5. Distribution, recommendations, next steps. The entire project would take about a year, given the lack of transparency of FPI and other corrections/prison labor operations and the need to obtain information through Freedom of Information Act requests. 9. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. We would release periodic briefings of significant findings to leaders in industry, government and civil society. The final report would be distributed to the same, as well as to the general public, as the impacts are of concern to all. This report will be of particular interest to a variety of local, state and national law-makers who are expressing growing concern over the use of prison/corrections labor, for a variety of reasons, and private sector recyclers who are trying to establish and maintain viable businesses. We 42 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT will also perform extensive follow up work after the report release to better explain the findings of the research to broad constituencies and to find where and how the data can be used to have the greatest impact on those affected by its findings. 10. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. Currently committed resources: Computer TakeBack Campaign: $5,000 In-kind services: Staff time and infrastructure from collaboration participants (Computer TakeBack Campaign, small business recyclers, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, etc.) Information: Additional documentation of lost business opportunities, lost contracts, adjustments to ESM and other business practices from private sector recyclers impacted by unfair competition by prison labor based programs. Documentation of public and private sector purchasing decisions or program changes brought about due to prison labor based services and prices. Documentation of problems resulting from use of prison based services including worker health, environmental justice, security of personal information, and performance complaints. Remaining Resources needed: In order to oversee research and data collection, coordinate collaborating group, and produce the document, we estimate a total budget of $30,000. 43 DRAFT DOCUMENT Project Idea: Develop National Legislative Model/Code DRAFT DOCUMENT Proposed by: Consolidation of proposals and additional ideas were submitted by various tables/stakeholders during the Meeting Project Description: Develop model state legislation or model code for national legislation that will scale to form a comprehensive End-of-Life management system for used electronics. Picture of Success in 5 Years: TBD Milestone Targets: Short term • Assess and analyze model bills and approaches already proposed at federal and state levels • Identify key areas of agreement and disagreement • Assess what legislators need • • • Determine organizational structure Clearinghouse of information Outreach to and involvement from all key stakeholders -Communication Mechanism: develop email/listserve - Develop information repository (NERC/CSG) Medium Term TBD 6 Months TBD Recommended Actions to Start: What Who TBD TBD By When TBD Ongoing Leadership TBD 44 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Contact Person to move this forward: TBD Meeting Participants Involved in Action Planning Session: Many of those involved in the Action Planning Session are listed below but were not all captured at the meeting. Please contact the lead if you wish to be involved. Name Frank Coolick Kara Reeve Greg King ? Lynn Rubinstein Raoul Clarke Steve Hirsch Theresa Stiner Kelly Panciera Christine Arcari Ted Campbell Al Chaney Rona Cohen Ali O’Donnell Marc Pearl Terri Goldberg Jay Hutchings Mark Murray Tamra Spielvogel John Anderson Lisa Sepanski Scott Klag Organization New Jersey DEP Clean Water Action Supply-Chain Services NERC Florida DEP ISRI IOWA DNR Center for New American Dream Hogan and Hartson, LLP South Carolina Dept. Commerce- Recycling Computer Recycling for Education CSG/ERC Sears Roebuck CERC NE Waste Mgmt. Officials’ Association Goodwill Industries Internatl. Californians Against Waste NCSL Toshiba King Co. Solid Waste Div, WA Metro County, OR Additional Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this project: Name Organization Willie Cade Computers for Schools Frank Marella Sharp Pamela Brody-Heine Brody-Heine Consulting 45 DRAFT DOCUMENT Sego Jackson Suellen Mele Steve Coe Harry Gregory Maria Socolof Terry Goldberg Snohomish County WA Citizens for Resource Conservation Virginia DEQ Environmental Solutions, Inc. Abt Associates, Inc. NEWMOA DRAFT DOCUMENT 46 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT Project Idea: Research Project for Eco-Efficient Supply Chain for EOL Electronics Proposed by: Jeremy Gregory, MIT, 617-324-5639 Project Description: Eco-efficient supply-chain for end-of-life electronics: A proposal for assessing current and emerging practices Picture of Success in 5 Years: See proposal below. Input from Action Planning participants included recommendations for MIT study to incorporate different collection scenarios to examine economic impacts. Also, it would be useful for the study to include number of jobs created as a metric of societal impacts of electronics reuse and recycling options. Milestone Targets: Short term See proposal below Medium Term See proposal below 6 Months see proposal below Recommended Actions to Start: What Who TBD By When Ongoing Leadership Jeremy Gregory, MIT Contact Person to move this forward: Jeremy Gregory, MIT Meeting Participants Involved in Action Planning Session (gave input to the research effort): Name Jeremy Gregory Verena Radulovic Sheila Davis Mark Izeman Organization MIT EPA SVTC NRDC 47 DRAFT DOCUMENT 2 additional stakeholders not captured (Please add!) DRAFT DOCUMENT Additional Meeting Participants that expressed interest in/obtaining information about this project: Name Organization Willie Cade Computers for Schools Mike Heth Nxtcycle Steve Coe Virginia DEQ Seth Heine Collective Good Monica Becker RIT John Bullock IPMI Al Chaney Computer Recycling for Education Georgiana Ball Virginia Dept of Commerce-Recycling Jim Sheire Philips Sego Jackson Snohomish County Kara Reeve Clean Water Action J.Ray Kirby PAZ Ted Smith SVTC Pete Muscanelli IAER Courtney Murrill Goodwill Chris Beling EPA Rick Goss EIA Mac Bybee SWANA Elizabeth Grossman Jim Puckett BAN Sarah Westervelt BAN Mick Schum WeRecycle! Steve Wyatt Computers and Ed. Corp. Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Scott Klag Metro County, Portland, OR Steve Hirsch ISRI Sonya Breehey IPC Chris Newman EPA Region 5 Craig Boswell HOBI Heather Bowman HP Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. Pamela Brody-Heine Brody-Heine Consultants ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 48 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT 1. Project Title Eco-efficient supply-chain for end-of-life electronics: A proposal for assessing current and emerging practices 2. Name of Lead Organization Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Randolph Kirchain, Assistant Professor, Materials Science and Engineering & Engineering Systems Division, MIT Staff Names and Titles: Ab Stevels, Professor, Industrial Design Engineering, Technical University of Delft, Jaco Huisman, Research Engineer, Design for Sustainability Program, Technical University of Delft, Jeremy Gregory, Research Engineer, MIT Laboratory for Energy & the Environment Address: Randolph Kirchain Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room E40-421, Cambridge, MA 02139 Tel: (617) 253-4258 Email: kirchain@mit.edu Role(s) in Project: Lead investigator 3b. What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? HP has committed involvement in the project and we have begun working with them. 3c. What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? From the government and non-profit arena, we have had discussions with Clare Lindsay at the EPA, Walter Alcorn of the Polymer Alliance Zone, and Raheem Cash of the General Services Administration. Our contacts with industry have primarily been facilitated through Bob Pfahl at the National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (NEMI). These contacts (not including HP) have included Motorola, Lucent, and Microsoft. We have also contacted Canon. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Groups should have an interest in the economic and environmental performance of the end-of-life (EOL) electronics recycling system and be able to support the effort through resources and access to data. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). This project seeks to examine the balance between the economic and environmental performance of the EOL electronics recycling supply-chain by quantifying in-practice performance and modeling material pathways in the system. Current and emerging procedures will be evaluated to guide industry best practices, potential legislation, and design for recycling. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. Project goals include: 1) quantifying the economic and environmental performance of the various in-place systems for the handling of EOL electronics within the US; 2) identifying best practices for organizing the EOL electronics supply-chain; 3) examining 49 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT how the system will be impacted by changes in policy, products, processing technology, and design for recycling; and 4) modeling how the system may change over time. Outcomes include: 1) models of relevant operations and activities within the current EOL electronics supply-chain; 2) consensus-based list of metrics to evaluate EOL electronics system performance; 3) baseline evaluation of current EOL electronics system performance; 4) scenario analysis on the economic and environmental performance of the EOL electronics system in response to changes in processing technology, organizational strategies, product design, and regulatory constraints; and 5) recommendations of scenarios leading to eco-efficient handling of EOL electronics. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. This study is unique for two major reasons. First, it examines the balance between the economic and environmental performance of the EOL electronics recycling system. Second, it examines the recycling supply-chain as a system; the approach is unique in its use of detailed modeling of individual EOL elements and methods that capture the interactions among those elements throughout the supply-chain. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. The development of an electronics recycling infrastructure, whether it be through legislative or industry means, is motivated by important environmental concerns. However, these concerns must be balanced with the economic performance of the system, which can hinder or strengthen the system and determine its sustainability. This project seeks to investigate processing and regulatory options that balance both environmental and economic performance. 4d. Geographic coverage of effort. If this effort is more local in scope, describe how this effort is scalable to a regional or national level AND plans for scaling. This project is not limited geographically. The regional scope will depend on the location of the collaborators’ recyclers and materials markets. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). We have already begun initial research with HP, but plan to increase the scope of the project as more industrial partners are added to the study. The initial timeframe for the research is two calendar years (ending during 2007). 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. Results of the project will be shared through typical publication channels: journals, conferences, theses, etc. However, proprietary data will not be published or will be masked at the request of a collaborator. Non-disclosure agreements can be arranged. 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. The annual budget for this research is $200k. We are seeking collaboration with OEMs, government agencies, or non-profit agencies who would contribute a minimum of $40k each. HP has already committed to be one of the partners. In 50 DRAFT DOCUMENT DRAFT DOCUMENT addition, we are also seeking funding through federal and foundation research grants. 51