COLLABORATION PROPOSALS HIGHLIGHTED AT EPA’s National Electronics Meeting March 1st - March 2nd, 2005 Washington DC Meeting followup- April 2005 Note: The following document is a compilation of the proposals submitted prior to and during the EPA’s National Electronics Meeting. It indicates which participants and observers would like to be involved in further developing and implementing the proposal or gathering more information about future efforts. In the coming weeks, EPA will identify its role in select projects. Theme: “Moving From Concept to Implementation” Purpose: Identify and 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.
Table of Contents:
Page
Projects from Group “A” Coordinating Collections, Gathering Data, Evaluating Markets, Clearinghouses…………3 Electronics Recycling Centralized Data Repository……………………………………..4 Multi-State Third Party Organization Project…………………………………………….9 Formation of National Clearinghouse…………………………………………………...14 Electronics Recycling Consortium………………………………………………………17 Sorting Electronic Products Collected for Recycling by Brand Name/Manufacturer......21 Additional Ideas Proposed at Meeting (Grant program…………………………………22 & Cradle-Cradle Economics)……………25 Projects from Group “B” Outreach and Education………………………………………………………………………26 Electronics Waste Consumer Awareness and Education Campaign …………………...27 The National Cristina Foundation’s computer re-use program…………………………31 Students Cleaning Up Their World: recycling Volunteers in Schools Taking Action (reVISTA)………………...33 “Reuse, The Better Way”……………………………………………………………….36 Additional Idea: Maximizing Dialogue on Reuse………………………………………38 Projects from Group “C” Electronics Recycling Certification…………………….…………………………………….39 Certification of Electronics Recyclers (includes additional proposed ideas surrounding certification that were generated at the meeting)…………40 Export Standards Project………………………………………………………………..45 Demand-Side Promotion of the E-Stewards (Pledge) Program………………………...49 Projects from Group “D” Other Proposed Projects (Research-Oriented, Specific Initiatives, Models/Codes, etc.)……………………………..52 Spare Tire OS Software Procurement Project…………………………………………53 Additional Idea Operating System for Used Machines..………………56 Assessing Impacts of the Use of Prison Labor………………………………………...57 Central Texas Plastic E-scrap Recycling Pilot Project………………………………...61 Research: Eco-efficient supply-chain for end-of-life electronics……………………...65 Additional Ideas: E-Waste/Electronics management system model (in Virginia)…….68 Develop financing programs for qualified recyclers………………..69 Global Regulatory Inequity- analysis………………………………70 Developing Model Code/Legislation…………………………………………………..71 International Waste Trade Law………………………………………………………..72 Projects from Group “E” Seeking input for existing efforts……………………………………………………………75 Retailer Electronic Product Take-back: Sustainable In-store Collection Project……...76 Electronics Recycling Collaboration Network (ERCN)……………………………….80 IAER Electronics Recycling Summit………………………………………………….84
Projects from Group “A” Coordinating Collections, Gathering Data, Evaluating Markets, Clearinghouses
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. 2. 3. 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 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. 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 calls organized by the NCER.
•
Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this proposal: 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 Jeremy Gregory MIT Al Chaney Computer Recycling for Education Garth Hickle Minnesota OEA Rodney Clara Goodwill Rick Goss EIA Greg King Supply Chain Services Terri Goldberg NEWMOA Seth Heine Collective Good Ed Nevins JVC Mark Murray Californians Against Waste Wendy Plant Creative Recycling Jim Webster RBRC Grant Mydland CompTIA Claudette Reed EPA Region 3 Steve Coe Virginia DEQ Pat Frank Global Investment Recovery
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 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
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 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
James Ewell John Anderson Maria Socolof
MBDC Toshiba Abt Associates, Inc.
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 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 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 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 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 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.
Meeting Participants Interested in this Proposal
Name Garth Hickle Tim Mann Claudette Reed 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 Suellen Mele Marc Pearl Lynn Rubinstein Heather Bowman Sheila Davis Verena Radulovic Maria Socolof Mike Heth Doug Smith Micah Chambless Steve Coe Ted Smith Jim Sheire Mark Murray Conrad Melancon Neil Peters-Michaud Sarah Westervelt Mac Bybee Earl Knudsen Lloyd Hicks Chris Newman Tom Sipher
Organization Minnesota OEA EPA Region 3 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 WA Citizens for Resource Conservation CERC NERC HP SVTC EPA Abt Associates NXTcycle Sony Electronic Recycling and Trading Virginia DEQ SVTC Philips Californians Against Waste RMS Communications Cascade Asset Managment BAN SWANA Westech Recyclers VitaStudios EPA Region 5 Thomson
John Anderson Clare Lindsay Rick Goss Monica Becker Sonya Breehey
Toshiba EPA EIA RIT IPC- Assoc. Connecting Electronics Industries
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 4. 5. 6. Project Title Formation of a national clearinghouse (NCH) Name of Lead Organization TBD- Proposed by Lloyd Hicks, Consultant, VitaStudios Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Staff Names and Titles: Address: TBD Tel: Email: Role(s) in Project: 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). 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. 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. Meeting Participants Interested in Proposal: Name Organization Lloyd Hicks VitaStudios Shane Thompson RBRC Linda Middleton NEC/Mitsubishi Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Steve Hirsch ISRI Mark Murray Californians Against Waste Verena Radulovic EPA Lynn Rubinstein NERC
Theresa Steiner Todd Hill Tom Sipher Chaz Miller Monica Becker Jason Linnell Sheila Davis Kathy Osdoba Heather Bowman John Anderson Maria Socolof Sego Jackson Georgiana Ball
Iowa Dept. Nat. Resources IAER/tricycle Thomson Nat. Solid Wastes Mgmt. Assoc. RIT NCER SVTC EPA HP Toshiba Abt Associates, Inc. Snohomish County Virginia Dept. Gen. Services- Recycling
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 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 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information IAER Lead Name and Title: Peter R. Muscanelli Staff Names and Titles: IAER President Address: P.O. Box 16222 Albany, NY 12212 Tel: 888-989-IAER (4237) Email: info@IAER.org Role(s) in Project: Co-Sponsors
3.
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. 2. 3. 4.
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. 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 nationwide 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. 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. Meeting Participants that expressed interest in this proposal 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 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
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. Project Title: Sorting Electronic Products Collected for Recycling by Brand Name and Manufacturer 2. Name of Lead Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: John L. (Jack) Price, Environmental Manager Staff Names and Titles: John (Jack) Griffith, Engineer; Raoul Clarke, Administrator; Autumn McCarthy, Data Entry Address: Hazardous Waste Management Section, 2600 Blair Stone Road MS 4555, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Tel: 850.245.8751 Email: john.l.price@dep.state.fl.us Role(s) in Project: Griffith - data collection software development and support, data QA.QC; Clarke - oversight and funding; McCarthy – data entry and QA/QC 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? Manufacturers: HP; Panasonic; Recyclers: Creative Recycling (Tampa); E-Scrap (Miami); Jack’s Recycling (Jacksonville); Quicksilver (Tampa); Secure Environmental Electronics Recycling (Tampa); Counties: Alachua, Miami-Dade, Pinellas, Sarasota, Seminole 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? US EPA Region 4; Electronic Industries Alliance; Philips; Sharp; Epson; Dell; Sony; JVC; IBM 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Provide funding, in-kind support and/or technical expertise on brand-manufacturer relationship 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The project will identify the brand names (and year of manufacture, if available) of televisions; computer monitors; computers; computer peripherals; and television peripherals. These product categories will be quantified as a percentage of electronic products actually collected for recycling and then compared with the brand distribution of these products that are sold.
4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes.
4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. The project addresses an unmet need to encourage electronic product manufacturer support of electronics recycling programs by collecting data that can be used to address the manufacturers’ concerns about retaining a level competitive playing field in the marketplace
Name Henry Garcia
Organization GRC Wireless Recycling
4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. See 4b above.
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. State wide in Florida. Other states or regions can use the methodology to gather their own data on the brands and manufacturers of electronic products collected for recycling or can use Florida data to approximate the electronic products recycling stream collected in their own state or region. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). Project start date: July, 2004
Task/Subtask Planning Operations Conduct Load Sorts Collect Data Reporting Monthly Data Updates Final Report Resources DEP, Recycler Partners All Partners DEP, Recycler Partners DEP, Recycler Partners DEP Target Dates Month 1-2 Month 3-12 Month 4-12 Month 4, 7, 10 Month 10-12 Work Product Agreements Data Data Reports Report
6.
Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. Monthly data updates to email distribution list; realtime data posting on web; project report posted to web. See 5 above. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. Committed: DEP $10,000; HP $5,000; Panasonic $5,000. Sought: Additional Funding. Meeting Participants that expressed interest in/getting more information about this proposal
7.
Georgiana Ball James Ewell Name Willie Cade Delores RodgersSmith Seth Heine Ted Smith David Thompson Sheila Davis J. Ray Kirby Todd Hill Steve Coe Hilary Miller Heather Bowman Frank Marella Rick Goss Aaron Ezroj Maria Socolof John Anderson Verena Radulovic
Virginia MBDC Organization Computers for Schools EPA Region 4 Collective Good SVTC Panasonic SVTC Polymer Alliance Zone truCycle & IAER Virginia DEQ Maryland DOE HP Sharp EIA U. California Abt Associates Inc. Toshiba EPA
Additional Proposal Idea Developed at the National Electronics Meeting for Group “A” Idea: Proposed National Grant Program Proposed by: Walter Alcorn, MARCEE Project, (703) 390-9200 Description: Develop a proposal for a National Electronics Recycling Grant Fund. This program would fund research to develop better recycling technologies and to develop better markets for recycled materials. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization David Thompson Panasonic Ted Campbell South Carolina Dept of CommerceRecycling Al Chaney Computer Recycling for Education Georgiana Ball Virginia Dept of General Services Stephanie Craver National Safety Council Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. Sonya Breehey IPC Heather Bowman HP Staci Gatica EPA-ORD Tim Mann IBM Craig Lorch Total Reclaim, Inc. Linda Middleton NEC-Mitsubishi Mac Bybee SWANA Jeremy Gregory MIT Rick Goss EIA Verena Radulovic EPA Jim Lynch Compumentor Pete Muscanelli IAER Rodney Clara Goodwill Grant Mydland CompTIA Monica Becker RIT Garth Hickle Minnesota OEA Steve Wyatt Computers and Education Corps. Aaron Ezroj Univ. California Lynn Rubinstein NERC Joe Nardone Envirocycle Micah Chambliss ERT Sheila Davis SVTC Steve Coe Virginia DEQ Willie Cade Computers for Schools
Additional Proposal Idea Developed at the National Electronics Meeting for Group “A” Idea: Cradle-to-Cradle Economics Proposed by: Unknown Group/Individual Description: Develop a financial model, first with theory and as available, by field data, and be able to explain cost responsibility as a function of time and scale or volume in an effort to defuse ownership issues while achieving responsible involvement Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Mark Izeman NRDC Lloyd Hicks VitaStudios Jeremy Gregory MIT Sego Jackson (may be able to Snohomish County provide information) Robin Schneider Texas Campaign for the Environment Jim Webster RBRC
Projects from Group “B” Outreach and Education
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. Project Title: Electronics Waste Consumer Awareness and Education Campaign 2. Name of Lead Organization: Computer Recycling For Education 3. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Al Chaney, President Staff Names and Titles: James Lindley, Project Manager Address: 15150 Dela Pena Circle Rancho Murieta, CA 95683 Tel: 916-354-1990 Email: ecycleit@sbcglobal.net Role(s) in Project: Manage an on-line ewaste discussion group (Apr 2005), managing portal to ewaste collaborates websites, producing video streaming PSAs, developing social marketing plans, product licensing, publishing, trade show coordination, lobbying (planned), seminars, consulting, college ewaste curriculum development, computer recycling curriculum development, ewaste management software development, product licensing and public outreach. 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? The following stakeholders have allowed Computer Recycling For Education to link to their websites: US EPA, Earth911 and the Electronics Industry Association. The purpose is to provide the public with resources for the safe and proper disposal of unwanted electronics. Currently, Café press distributes our “No waste” public awareness and education promotional products. 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? Dell Computer, Computers For Classrooms and the Our Kids Program have been contacted to get involved with our project. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Organizations and companies who reuse, refurbish, recycle, remarket recycled content electronics and/or teach computer and life skill for job training and economic development can collaborate on our project. Second, organizations/companies who provide public outreach, education and publish information on ewaste awareness, prevention, sustainability and best practices. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The purpose of our Electronics Waste (ewaste) Consumer Awareness and Education Campaign is to provide public awareness and education on the best practices for the management of ewaste. Our programs also promote an international ambassador (icon) for the awareness, prevention and education of ewaste. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes.
4.
Goal 1. Increase public awareness of ewaste management and prevention through reducing use of electronics, reusing electronics, recycling electronics and re-buying recycled content electronics. Desired outcome: Establish an ewaste icon for ewaste awareness and prevention. Publish ewaste education curriculum, videos, curriculum (K-college), manuals and training material to assist government agencies, business, retailers, manufacturers, and municipalities in their outreach and education campaigns. Reduce the amount of ewaste in the waste stream through social marketing and a change in consumer behavior. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. Currently no national or international icon exists for the awareness and prevention of ewaste or electronics reuse/recycling. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. No comprehensive ewaste management education program exists in the United States to educate the public, from kids through adults on ewaste awareness, prevention and electronics reuse and recycling. A national ecycling infrastructure will not be able manage ewaste properly without a national icon fostering change in consumer behavior. The US Forest Service has a bear, and the National Crime Prevention Council has a dog. Why can’t the national ecycling infrastructure have an elephant to remind us of the proper reuse, recycling and disposal of electronics? Ewaste Eddie says, “Remember to Ecycle-it” 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 geographic coverage of this effort is at the national level. However, the Internet will allow this effort to be scaleable on an international level. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e. communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). Communications Plan: Press releases March-Dec: 2005 Video News Releases July-Aug: 2005 Trade ads Sep- Nov: 2005 TV Ads Oct-Dec: 2005 Community Outreach: Civic groups Municipalities Schools Conferences April-Nov: 2005 Jul-Feb 2005-2006 Sept-Dec: 2005 Mar-Oct: 2005 June-Feb 2005-2006 Aug-May 2005-2006 Aug-Jun 2005-2006 Sep-Jul 2005-2006 Oct-Aug 2005-2006
Education Efforts: Project Monitoring:
Website traffic/forum statistics Ewaste promotional item sales Phone request for ewaste services Ewaste-recycling tonnage rates Increase in collection events
6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. Increased website statistics June-Feb 2005-2006 Increased promotional item sales Aug-May 2005-2006 Increase in request for consulting Aug-Jun 2005-2006 Ewaste recycling tonnage rates Sep-Jul 2005-2006 Increase in collection events Oct-Aug 2005-2006 Increase in new recycling businesses Mar 2006 The results will be shared with collaborative partners via email. Non-proprietary results can be published in the forum discussion section of our web page. Articles can also be written and sent to industry trade publications. Press releases are another form of disseminating diversion data that we plan to use. Environmental organizations and government agencies can also be sent results. 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. The US EPA, Earth911 and the Electronics Industry Association have allowed Computer Recycling For Education to place a link on our website. These links help consumers, business and government to locate collectors and recyclers of electronics all across the nation that can recycle or dispose of their unwanted electronics in an environmentally friendly manner. The remaining resources needed for collaboration on this project are: Licensees for Ewaste Eddie and Ecycle-it trademarks. Advertisers/sponsors on our website. Partners/sponsors to collaborate on ewaste video projects. Distributors for our consumer education promotional items. Recyclers, waste haulers, retailers and government agencies willing to include an ewaste icons (Ewaste Eddie and/or Remember to Ecycle-it) in their outreach campaigns. 6. Government development grants for small businesses. 7. Partners/sponsors for attending tradeshows and conferences. 8. Banners on computer and electronics manufacturers websites to our website. 9. Media coverage from TV/Radio, newspapers and trade journals. 10. Partnerships/sponsorships with computer/electronics manufacturers, national waste haulers, food industry processors, educational publishers, national retailers, state departments of education, software publishers and theme parks. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Jonathon Latko Temple University Marc Pearl (can help CERC discussion if there is retailer involvement) Steve Coe Virginia DEQ Conrad Melancon RMS Communications Group Michael George Ricoh Earl Knudsen Westech Recyclers Mac Bybee SWANA Ray Moreau SWIX Rob Zopf National Christina Foundation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Wendy Plant Seth Heine Maria Socolof Delores Rodgers-Smith Brian Hamlin
Creative Recycling Collective Good Abt Associates, Inc. EPA Region 4 Ewaste Handlers Tech Council
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. Project Title: The National Cristina Foundation’s computer re-use program 2. Name of Lead Organization: The National Cristina Foundation 3. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Yvette Marrin, PH.D., President Staff Names and Titles: Heather Burns Knierim- VP of Programs, Rob Zopf- VP of Operations; Brian Barrett-VP of Technology Address:500 West Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, CT 06830 Tel: 203-863-9100 Email:ncf@cristina.org Role(s) in Project: For 20 years, the National Cristina Foundation has directed donations of used computer equipment to organizations throughout the US. These groups train people with disabilities, students at risk and economically disadvantaged persons to lead more independent and productive lives. As part of this effort, the National Cristina Foundation advocates the importance of computer donation and reuse. 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? Major corporations, small businesses, and individual donors contribute equipment that is used by our grassroots partner network (composed of nonprofit organizations, schools, and public agencies.) 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? We are open to all eligible groups, as indicated in question 3d below. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Anyone with Pentium 2 or newer equipment can donate. Nonprofit groups and public agencies that wish to receive equipment must complete a Grant Application documenting that they provide education and training to people with disabilities, students at risk, or economically challenged persons. Information on how to donate and/or how to become a partner can be accessed at www.cristina.org 2. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The National Cristina Foundation matches donations of used computer equipment (which no longer meets the needs of businesses or individuals) with nonprofit organizations, schools, and public agencies throughout the United States that train people with disabilities, students at risk, and economically disadvantaged persons. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. At this time, the National Cristina Foundation is seeking additional corporate partnerships to expand donations of technology suitable for re-use from their facilities or through their customer base. (We work with corporations to develop ongoing plans for their donation experiences). Additionally, we welcome additional organizations throughout the United States to register to become a member of the National Cristina Foundation grassroots network. The grant application is online at www.cristina.org. There are no fees charged either to donors or to NCF partner organizations.
4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. We provide the only national donation channel for the distribution of used IT assets to nonprofits, schools, and public agencies. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. The re-use of computer equipment postpones the need for recycling, keeps working equipment from placement in local landfills, and also promotes appropriate product stewardship. 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 National Cristina Foundation operates in all 50 states and Canada. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). Now in our 20th year, the process is on-going and scalable. 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. Donors receive communication to assist them in completing the donation process, as well as a receipt declaring the fair-market value of their donation. Partner organizations receive information regarding available equipment. Interested parties can learn more about these efforts in our on-line magazine, “Cristina Connections” (www.cristina.org) 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. We seek donors of used IT assets and partner organizations that can benefit from these donations. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Computer recycling for Al Chaney Education Richard Pastor Wal-Mart Stores Shelby Houston Epson America Earl Knudsen Westech Recyclers Grant Mydland CompTIA Doug Blackley Technology Conservation group John Anderson Toshiba Marc Pearl CERC Rick Goss Electronic Industry Alliance Todd Hill trueCycle, Inc. Ted Smith Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Sheila Davis Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Raoul Clarke Florida Dept. of Env. Protection HP (Heather Bowman) HP James Ewell MBDC Kathy Osdoba EPA
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. Project Title: Students Cleaning Up Their World: recycling Volunteers in Schools Taking Action (reVISTA) 2. Name of Lead Organization: CollectiveGood Foundation, a 501(c) (3) corporation. 3. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Cynthia Daley, Executive Director Staff Names and Titles: tbd Address: 1015 Moorefield Hill Grove, S.W., Vienna, VA 22180 Tel: (703) 281-2862 Email: Cynthia@collectivegood.com • • Role(s) in Project: Promote the project within school systems and coordinate with school staff. Provide organizing materials and planning assistance and maintain a (free) curriculum materials section within the CollectiveGood Foundation (CGF) website to support teacher and student planning, including featuring success stories and helpful hints, and links to other participating schools, recycling advocacy, and government agencies. Explore with state level educational (SEA) staff how the cell phone recycling curriculum can be linked to the state standards of learning (SOLs). Publish Project reVISTA updates and progress reports through the web. Every effort will be made to use existing virtual networks to assist a free flow of information to schools, other organizations and the public. 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? Several educational and service organizations have expressed interest in being partners with schools in their communities. At this time, partnerships are still being formed. 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? Relationships with various educational and environmental organizations are being explored. Potential partners include at least 2 national store chains that currently support school initiatives, national and state education organizations, including teacher unions. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? All interested groups are invited to participate and collaborate. Students in late elementary through high school curricula would be suited for participation. For guidance we urge that groups first work as locally as possible, within their most immediate sphere of contact and influence (people whom students already know or are likely to have contact with, for example, municipal and county governments, parents in local businesses, community helping organizations, such as Rotary, etc.)
• •
1. Project Description (limit to 50 words). Project reVISTA allows each classroom to “Think Globally, Act Locally”, with tangible results for environmental quality and holistic learning. A student’s successful participation in reVISTA can shape his attitude toward a clean environment for decades, perhaps life. Sponsoring organizations will provide an age-appropriate curriculum that supports environmental learning activities, collection materials, prepaid shipping labels, and project evaluation will track effectiveness of the school/community cooperation. To effectively keep cell phones out of landfill and thus from contaminating groundwater, it is first necessary to collect them. Where better than at the local school? Schools have a compelling interest in teaching about the hygiene of the local environment. Because no longer needed cell phones may have a residual value, especially when they are collected throughout a community, there is also a financial incentive for schools to become involved. As a partner in Project reVISTA, participating schools plug into a process that makes it exceptionally easy to send off the collected phones – they receive prepaid shipping labels. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes: The overall goal is to shape the attitudes of students toward a clean environment, and inculcate a sense of accountability for protecting the environment. Through their own activities they will gain a heightened awareness of the importance of end of life product recycling for eWaste. A desired outcome is that they will become aware of the disposal problems posed by obsolete electronics. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. Of the 100,000,000 cell phones discarded in the U.S. each year, less than 1% are properly recycled, but all should be. There is at this time no mandated program for end of life recycling of excess cell phones. This is a volunteer program that can harness the private sector and students to meet this unmet need. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. Project reVISTA may be seen as a pilot demonstration project. From its implementation we may refine our understanding of what works. We can directly measure its impact by tracking numbers of phones collected and processed through these private actions and as a better indicator of changing attitudes, the number of students who are active in reVISTA. This may suggest what incentives to recycle may be helpful at various governmental levels. 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 Internet is a swift and low cost pathway to teachers, schools, and recycling advocacy and government agencies. Much of our work will be through media coverage of reVISTA success stories – building momentum with each interview. A media campaign is an important element in the proposal. Delivery of the materials, collection of the eWaste, and progress reporting are already finely honed logistics operations in place at several schools. This effort is comparable to a pixilated picture, with each school’s effort showing as a pixel within the overall picture. We are offering the program to any school, and hope that over time, the regional and national impact may become clear.
2. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). We are currently in the initial stages, publishing on the web success stories and supporting materials that will encourage schools. The project will be fully in place by fall of 2005. Project reVISTA is conceived as an effort that while national in scope may be implemented by a small school at the local level. The materials needed are provided at no cost to the school. It is expected that schools will network among themselves. 3. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. First results suggest that these collection activities work well at the classroom level, especially when integrated into the ongoing curriculum over the period of the school year. If any monetary proceeds support school goals, the collection activities are more likely to become an evergreen effort that is undertaken every year. Administrative support is obviously very helpful to the effort. Results may be measured in numbers within a context: How many: students, phones, earned rewards? Over what time frame? Is the effort seen as worth repeating? What supports are necessary? Helpful? At what level? Does government have a role? 4. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. The EPA promotion of cell phone recycling (and proper disposal) publicizes the problem. The EPA publications are helpful, as would be the development of additional educational materials that explain environmental hazards and encourage private action. Describe remaining resources sought. Project reVISTA is designed as a collaborative effort. All interested groups are welcome to participate. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Henry Garcia GRC Wireless Recycling Greg King Supply Chain Services (SSI) Karen Richardson EPA Jim Puckett (interested in BAN curriculum development in association with this) Rodney Clara Goodwill
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM
1. Project Title: “Reuse, The Better Way” 2. Name of Lead Organization Computers For Classrooms 3. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Pat Furr, President Staff Names and Titles: Al Chaney, Secretary Address: 422 Otterman Drive Ste. 80 Chico, CA 95928 Tel: 530-895-4175 Email: pfurr@computersforclassrooms.org Role(s) in Project: Administration of organization to providing refurbished computers to schools, nonprofits and low-income families to reduce the Digital Divide. 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? Chico Unified School District, California Department of General Services (DGS), Microsoft (MARS), Compumentors, WTP Recycling, Great Valley, CIWMB (authorized collector (0.20/pd.), Chico State University, Butte College, County libraries, Foster agencies, nonprofits and Sun Microsystems (open office). 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? Our Kids program 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Computer donors, software publishers, funding, in-kind services, volunteers, hardware donors, recycling, and sponsors. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The program solicits surplus computers, to refurbish and upgrade them using volunteer labor, and to supply them to school public, private schools and low-income families. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. Goal: Provide no cost or low cost computers to California schools. Desired outcome: Increase the student to computer ratio in California schools, close the digital divide, train volunteers for entry level jobs, increase the ownership of computers in low income families. Reduce the numbers of CRTs in the waste stream. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. This program provides refurbished computers and keeps monitors our of landfills in a farming/agricultural community and fosters economic development. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. No comprehensive nationwide program is targeted for rural communities. A national ecycling infrastructure will not be able manage ewaste properly without a national policy to address the rural communities.
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 geographic coverage of this effort is at the local level. However, it could be scalable by CFC offering a two-day hands-on training course. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e. communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). Communications Plan: Newspapers, Internet Timeframe: Continuous Community Outreach: Fliers, web page updates Timeframe: Continuous Education Efforts: Volunteer training Timeframe: Continuous Project Monitoring: Computers donated to schools Timeframe: Continuous 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. The number of computers provided to schools, families and nonprofits. The results will be shared with collaborative partners via email. Articles can also be written and sent to industry trade publications. Press releases are another form of disseminating diversion data that we plan to use. Environmental organizations and government agencies can also be sent results. 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. The remaining resources needed for collaboration on this project are: -Funders (Continuous) -Volunteers -Hardware donations -Software donations -Federal Surplus computers and electronics -Federal grants -Gasoline donations -Transportation equipment (trucks, fork lifts) -Conference/convention sponsors -Real estate developers Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Willie Cade Computers for Schools Jim Lynch Compumentor John Anderson Toshiba Rob Zopf National Christina Foundation Al Chaney Computer Recycling for Education
Additional Proposal Idea Developed at the National Electronics Meeting for Group “B” Idea: Dialogue on Maximizing Reuse Proposed by: Unknown Table/Participants Description: EPA to facilitate multi-stakeholder meeting on how to maximize ewaste reuse; This would include OEMs (design to enhance reuse potential), software companies (to make old software programs available at low or no cost, e.g. “spare tire”), recyclers, non-profits, etc.; Issue recommendation on how to increase reuse potential of ewaste.
Project from Group “C” Electronics Recycling Certification
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 5. Project Title: Certification of Electronics Recyclers (This form includes additional proposed ideas surrounding certification that were generated at the meeting) 6. Name of Lead Organization International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER) 7. 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). 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.). 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. *****The following ideas and proposals were added at the meeting surrounding efforts to certify recyclers. The participants listed below all expressed interest in some aspect of certification. The additional ideas capture the breadth of ideas and desire for comprehensive planning outlined by meeting participants.****** Idea: CHWMEG, Inc. Shared Cost Electronics Waste Processing Facility Review Reports Proposed by: Jeffrey Sacre; CHWMEG, Inc; (412) 826-3056 Description: Expand facility review program to address a greater count and a broader, global distribution of electronics waste processors. Idea: Certification must create “marketable value,” industry cooperation; could be a third-party non-profit; could be a subset of EPEAT. Could use EPA guidelines, OSHA requirements, DOT weights and measure, and ANSI process to help develop the guidelines. Idea: Key components of a certification program should include: international recognition, leveled playing field, exploration of how we can leverage California’s standards, have a uniformly accepted entity for leadership Idea: Self-certification, due diligence, audit checklist or standardized contracts. A shopping list for educating consumers on what services to look for that indicate responsible processing. This could be used to legitimize minimal standards for people looking for recyclers. Idea: Assessing compliance for recycler certification. EPA as potential compliance arm for IAER or other recycler processor certification. Aim to is to help create a level playing field, beyond just certification without follow-up or compliance inspections. Idea: NCER certification, assessment and alternatives. NCER (with stakeholders) determine needs, existing programs, needs for improvement and accountability, and alternatives to certification.
Idea: Third-party [neutral] multi-stakeholder collaboration on a mutually acceptable e-recycler certification program to help answer questions such as: - is a national certification necessary? - What already exists? EPA guidelines, IAER, ISO, Pledge of True Stewardship, etc. - What are the essential elements? - Who will/can administer? - Can it have “teeth”/enforcement? Meeting Participants Interested in this Proposal Name Organization Lynn Williams EPA Region 5 Sheila Davis SVTC Bill Smith Retro Box, Ltd. Willie Cade Computers for Schools Mike Heth Nxtcycle Steve Coe Virginia DEQ Seth Heine Collective Good Monica Becker RIT John Bullock IPMI Pete Muscanelli IAER Courtney Murrill Goodwill Chris Beling EPA Sego Jackson Snohomish County Joe Nardone Envirocycle J.Ray Kirby PAZ Ted Smith SVTC Rick Goss EIA Mac Bybee SWANA Jim Puckett BAN Sarah Westervelt BAN Mick Schum WeRecycle! Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Scott Klag Metro County, Portland, OR Steve Hirsch ISRI Sonya Breehey IPC Chris Newman EPA Region 5 Verena Radulovic EPA Heather Bowman HP Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. Cynthia Keidel UNICOR Jonathon Latko Temple University Pamela Brody-Heine Brody-Heine Consultants Steve Skurnac Noranda Recycling Andy Niles Scientific Recycling, Inc. Henry Garcia GRC Wireless Recycling Ted Campbell South Carolina Dept of Commerce- Recycling
Bob Harris Brenda Tongotti Doug Blackley Tom Sipher Dick Pastor Viccy Salazar Micah Chambliss Peter Bennison Juan Lopez Wendy Plant Jay Slater Harry Gregori Allen Wilson Bob Tonetti Jim Garner Todd Hill Lauren Roman Rodney Clara Pat Frank Grant Mydland Suellen Mele James Ewell Scott Pencer Raoul Clarke Kathy Osdoba Earl Knudsen Greg King
BDC Electro Recycling TeckCominco Metals, Ltd. Technology Conservation Group Thomson Wal-mart EPA Region 10 ERT Waste Management and Recycling Products, Inc. OFEE Creative Recycling Chasm Industries Environmental Solutions, Inc. Intel EPA Metech International truCycle and IAER United Recycling Goodwill Global Investment Recovery CompTIA Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation MBDC Noranda Recycling, Inc. Florida DEA EPA Westech Recyclers Supply Chain Services, Inc.
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. 2. 3. Project Title: (WR3A)EXPORT STANDARDS PROJECT Name of Lead Organization: WR3A
Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Robin Ingenthron, Board President Staff Names and Titles: Lin King, VP, Aaron Murray-Nellis, Mike Rohrbach, officers; Austen Levihn-Coon (Middlebury College Intern); Ben Lam(webmaster) Address: PO Box 1010, Middlebury, VT 05753 Tel: 802-377-9400; 802-382-8500 Email: robin@wr3a.org Role(s) in Project: Robin I. will coordinate Standards development and recruiting for USA recyclers. Lin King will coordinate Standards development and recruiting for USA generators (focusing on institutions and government surplus property offices in the beginning). Mike Rhorbach will coordinate Standards development and recruiting of Digital Divide reuse organizations. Aaron Murray-Nellis will field incoming calls, answer questions, and triage responses. Austen Levihn-Coon will provide project support; Ben Lam will provide web development. 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to your project? Good Point Recycling (Middlebury, VT), Univ. California Davis, Cochise County Learning Advisory Council (Bisbee, AZ), Tech Materials Inc. (Shenzhen, China), GITIC (Guangzhou, China). 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? In discussion with Mineral Policy Center (Washington, DC) and National Electronics Service Dealers Assoc. (NESDA), and World Computer Exchange (which has offices and members in several countries overseas). Membership applications also coming in from dozens of other recyclers. Guangdong Province EPA is also being consulted. We have had numerous discussions with Basel Action Network. We would like UNCTAD (United Nations Trade and Development organization) to play a role. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Detailed rules posted on application on organization’s website www.wr3a.org. Members must agree to obey strict rules for exporting for repair and recycling, as allowed under Basel Convention Annex 9, must agree to submit to 3rd party verification. A TV repair buyer in Peru could have a load pre-inspected by a paid NESDA (domestic TV repair dealer, thousands of members nationwide). A domestic recycler could request that a facility overseas be visited by a United Nations field representative or WR3A member. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words).
WR3A’s objective is to raise the standards of exports allowed under Annex 9 of the Basel Convention. There are legitimate environmental, social and economic justifications for exports, but some markets are abused as a cheap way to dispose of “Toxics Along for the Ride”. Importers do not WANT the junk, they are desperate to import items which they can really use. Collectively, WR3A members will meet their demand, offering no excuse to accept mixed loads of junk. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Provide testing standards and product data sheets (each monitor listed by make, model, voltage, size, country of manufacture, cosmetics, picture condition, evidence of nonrepairable problems). Sign up enough USA suppliers to provide 130,000 good, legal, refurbishable units per month. Once this demand is met, cut off any export demand market which continues to buy bad monitors as TAR outside of WR3A. Provide notification of shipments to appropriate trade offices in the country of importation. Solicit feedback from importers to improve standards and create new data tracking categories; convey these to domestic WR3A members. Warn WR3A members who fail those guidelines. Report on environmental lifecycle of exported products, economic results, etc. Recommend “reduction” of exports which are likely to show diminishing environmental returns (old monitors, energy-hogging appliances, etc.) Generate enough membership to allow cooperative marketing to raise the standards of exports for importing countries as well as exporting countries. Identify other goods (computers, TVs, VCRs, etc.) which are appropriate for export for repair under the WR3A model. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. USA recyclers are being driven into two camps by the word “Exporter”. Some are exporting based on their own economic interests (which encourages a junk unit being sold at a “repairable” price). Others are afraid to export anything, even working electronics. This makes recycling more expensive and reduces participation in collection programs. WR3A will make it easier for USA recycling companies to determine which markets are safe and legal to export to, and will help overseas importer know which USA companies have legitimate processes to screen out TAR. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. The economics of recycling benefit from proper application of the EPA hierarchy. If the cost of recycling (dismantling, shredding, etc.) 10 monitors is $5 per monitor, the cost to generators and recyclers is $50. If two of those monitors are tested as working or repairable under Basel Convention Annex 9 at an average WR3A purchase order price of $10 per monitor, the cost of collecting 10 monitors drops to $20 – 20% reuse achieves 60% cost savings. This effort will reform reuse so that the hierarchy is not sacrificed due to fears of the export market, and will provide generators who are not experts in the field of electronics repair a simple reference to evaluate their service providers. 4d. Geographic coverage of effort.
The WR3A is nationwide, officers meet by conference call on a monthly basis. We will meet the 130,000 monitors per month purchase order from different participants across the country. 6. • • • • • Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME The website is being translated by UC Davis and Middlebury College students . American Retroworks Inc. has offered its proprietary software for testing, grading and evaluating monitors and TVs for maximum reuse in different world markets. The WR3A needs to recruit participants to meet the purchase orders, and establishing preand post-inspection and material preparation standards. WR3A will hire professional repair experts to review and audit the export standards to make sure they fit the standards of the country of import, USA EPA, and Basel Convention Annex 9. WR3A will solicit participation from Universities and colleges to evaluate the model based on their own surplus property supplies, while promoting it directly to generators as well as processors.
7. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. Membership criteria and standards will be re-evaluated as the project proceeds, and changes will be made at www.wr3a.org After 2 loads are sold to any import market, a site visit will be arranged either by WR3A (we are visiting two sites in China in May; WR3A officers already visited sites in Africa, China, Lithuania and Mexico) or by a 3rd party auditor (e.g. World Computer Exchange member). Lifecycle analysis will be performed based on secondary research of meeting demand via reuse and repair or via mining and manufacturing, and published in a trade journal. By taking forecasting total market demand for products into account, WR3A should be able to react when there is risk that it is prolonging use of a less environmental technology (e.g. energy-intensive CRTs) at the expense of better technology. University researchers will examine the recommendations and evaluate the lifecycle analysis. Economic tests will be applied to search for indicators of bad practices. For example, one importer represented he could really repair certain Apple and Sony monitors which most importers reject; if his condition was no more than 10%, and his price offered for the “A” grade monitors was 10% less, we could deduce that TAR may account for the drop in “A” grade price. 8. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. WR3A has excellent planning and credentials but needs seed money. If the organization is funded by membership fees, it will be difficult to attract enough suppliers to meet purchase orders in Year 1, and will make enforcement of standards more difficult. Without assistance, WR3A will grow and succeed but will be forced to more “trial and error” based reform (for example, qualifying buyers after sales rather than before sales). This will in turn
feed skepticism about any and all export markets, which will slow the recruitment of new suppliers into membership. With a full time staffing stipend of $63,000, WR3A will be able to waive or reduce membership application fees, and do more market testing in advance; we will be able to put more time into development of sustainable funding (for example, being contracted by USA recyclers to do notification of country of import, which can be done more economically in a larger WR3A purchase order). Meeting Participants Interested in this Proposal Name Organization Bob Tonetti EPA J. Ray Kirby Neil Peters-Michaud Jim Puckett BAN Monca Becker RIT Mick Schum WeRecycle! Pamela Brody-Heine Brody-Heine Consultants Lynn Rubinstein NERC Lisa Sepanski King County Solid Waste Division Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. Mike Heth Nxtcycle Sheila Davis SVTC Doug Blackley Tom Sipher Micah Chambliss Verena Radulovic EPA Earl Knudsen Westech Peggy Harris Craig Lorch Ted Campbell South Carolina Dept of Commerce-Recycling Scott Klag Georgiana Ball Lauren Roman United Recycling
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 7. Project Title
Creating Markets for Responsible Recyclers: Demand-Side Promotion of the E-Stewards (Pledge) Program 8. Name of Lead Organization
Basel Action Network and Computer TakeBack Campaign 9. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Sarah Westervelt, Ewaste project coordinator Staff Names and Titles: Jim Puckett, BAN coordinator, Ted Smith, SVTC Address: 122 S. Jackson St., Suite 320, Seattle, WA. 98104 Tel: 206-652-5555 Email:swestervelt@ban.org
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. Likewise we can expect the support of our current E-Stewards (over 30 electronics recyclers who have signed the Electronics Recycler’s Pledge of True Stewardship). 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? We have received some verbal support from key manufacturers and large institutions, indicating that the rapid expansion of a third party certified E-Stewards program is viable and can begin to include pledges by major electronics consuming entities (those purchasing e-waste processing services). We would increasingly contact and involve state and local governments as well. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? A commitment to the principles laid out in the Electronic Recycler’s Pledge of True Stewardship. 10. Project Description. The Electronic Recycler’s Pledge of True Stewardship was created to provide a marketplace mechanism to begin to responsibly internalize the real costs of e-waste and forbid costexternalizing dumping, prison labor and export avenues. The E-Stewards program is now well established from the supply side. This new program will seek similar support on the demand side – signatories of major electronics consuming institutions and corporations pledging to only use E-Steward participants. Transforming the Pledge into a 3rd party audited certification program will help facilitate this demand from the generators of e-waste.
4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. The purpose of this project is to transform the program from an honor system to a TPO certified and audited one, and to achieve agreement from large e-waste generators/consumers such as corporations, OEMs, Universities, Government agencies, school systems, etc. to utilize only ESteward program participants (the most rigorous social and environmental criteria in North America). We expect to sign up a new list of E-Stewards on the demand side that is, a new list of those pledging to only use our pledging E-Stewards. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. We can identify no programs other than the E-Stewards Initiative in North America that address the crucial cost-externalizing e-waste avenues of export, landfill dumping and prison labor that together work against justice and sustainability by a) impeding the development of responsible national e-waste recycling, b) providing a disincentive for green design, c) perpetuating environmental injustice, and d) violating international law. Without eliminating these avenues of irresponsibility, real progress in solving the e-waste crisis will be unlikely. Further, by increasing pledges on the demand side, the supply side will grow dramatically, leading to growth in sustainable solutions. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. As long as export, use of prison labor, and dumping in solid waste management systems is condoned, it will be very hard for legitimate recyclers that truly reflect the cost of internalizing the liabilities of e-waste to compete. Currently, most of the recyclers that are doing things in accordance with the Pledge are operating at under capacity, as they are undercut by a free-for-all market where exporting hazardous e-waste remains a profitable alternative to responsibly handling the waste. Once it becomes unacceptable to use downstream export avenues for hazardous waste for example, then the service of responsible recycling can finally flourish and the global goal of national self-sufficiency in hazardous waste management (Basel Convention) can be realized. 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 Pledge is designed to be North American in Scope. Depending on the funding received we will be able to proceed in this initiative throughout the US and Canada with particular emphasis perhaps on certain regional arenas as defined by the locations of key organizational members of the Computer TakeBack Campaign. For example BAN would like to proceed with garnering institutional support in the Pacific Northwest as a priority. 8. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). The first steps will include: a) identify those corporations and institutions we believe could be easily persuaded to agree to sign an agreement to only use our E-Stewards. b) identify the obstacles for such corporations and institutions to signing such an agreement. c) publicize such signatories. 50
9. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. Clearly, the progress of this program will be easily noted by the numbers of new signatories garnered from major e-waste generators. The results of these successes will be publicized with case studies documented and published. Once key regions are able to sign up local institutions, key experiences will be shared from region to region, among members of the Computer TakeBack Campaign, as well as among solid waste officials of state and local government agencies. 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: Member Organizations of the Computer TakeBack Campaign, E-Steward Recyclers Remaining Resources needed: For real success we would hope to engage one full-time coordinator ($40,000 with an operating budget of $20,000). Two full years of this level funding is needed. Meeting Participants Interested in this Proposal Name Organization Wendy Plant Creative Recycling Robin Schneider Texas Campaign for the Environment Bob Harris BDC Electro Ted Smith SVTC Mick Schum WeRecycle! Al Chaney Compter Recycling for Education Seth Heine Collective Good Lauren Roman United Recycling Courtney Murrill Goodwill Industries Frank Marella Sharp Suellen Mele Washington Citizens for Resources Conservation Steve Hirsch ISRI Kara Reeve Clean Water Action Neil Peters-Michaud Steve Coe Virginia DEQ Doug Blackley Sheila Davis SVTC James Ewell MBDC
51
Projects from Group “D” Other Proposed Projects (Research-Oriented, Specific Initiatives, Models/Codes, etc.)
52
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM
1. 2. 3.
Project Title: Spare Tire OS Software Procurement Project Name of Lead Organization: WR3A
Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Robin Ingenthron, Board President Staff Names and Titles: Lin King, VP, Aaron Murray-Nellis, Mike Rohrbach, officers; Austen LevihnCoon (Middlebury College Intern); Ben Lam(webmaster) Address: PO Box 1010, Middlebury, VT 05753 Tel: 802-377-9400; 802-382-8500 Email: robin@wr3a.org Role(s) in Project: Robin I. will coordinate meetings with state surplus property offices, state procurement offices, college and university procurement and surplus property offices. Aaron Murray-Nellis and Lin King will coordinate follow up with the different universities and state offices. 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to your project? Good Point Recycling (Middlebury, VT), Univ. California Davis, Cochise County Learning Advisory Council (Bisbee, AZ), several small digital divide organizations, Middlebury College 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? World Computer Exchange, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New Deal Foundation, GNU 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Procurement authority for OEM software purchases, expertise in end-user software requirements, expertise and experience in reuse and support. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words).
Software is critical to the resale value of PCs, and one of the factors driving the export market (to countries without piracy laws in force). Software companies have legitimate concerns about operating systems being copied. Institutions have legitimate needs to have their hard drives erased. The result is that recyclers must choose whether to pay up to $80 to reinstall a new Operating System, pirate the software, leave the hard drive unscrubbed, or recycle the PC as scrap. Our project will encourage pre-purchase of a “Spare Tire” licenses in advance, through IT budgets. The spare tire licenses can be executed when the asset is retired, cleaning the hard drive. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. 53
- Identify a pilot procurement, to reinstall spare tire licensing (or other solution) on purchased PCs -Measure recycling cost of PCs which bear cleaned hard drives and legal licenses. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. This idea has the potential to reduce hard drive erasure costs without sacrificing data security, and to provide Digital Divide groups with a source of reuseable PCs with legal licenses at an affordable cost, thus reducing the costs born by the recycling infrastructure. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. This idea would benefit all recyclers nationwide, just as recycled paper content standards boosted paper recycling. 4d. Geographic coverage of effort. See above 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME • • • • • Identify bulk purchasing contracts, particularly for “NT” systems on PCs, which represent a bulk volume of PCs which cannot run independently of a server (10 weeks) Hold focus groups with IT managers and Surplus Property managers, large lot retailer/wholesalers, and software companies. (8 weeks) Test system so that users do not accidentally execute the spare tire and wipe out their drives (perhaps with password protection or necessity of a backup disk) but that it is still easier than doing manual data wipes. (24 weeks) Draft EULA agreements specifying the responsibilities of OEMs or software companies to support the systems.(3 weeks) Determine whether a portion of the cost should be paid by the second user (e.g through sale of a “Spare tire inflator Hkey”. Test use of the spare tire PCs in actual school or digital divide projects. (6 months)
6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. University researchers will examine the recommendations and evaluate the lifecycle analysis. Economic tests will be applied to search for indicators of bad practices. Total revenues received by software companies for the Spare Tire licenses (received as an initial increase in cash flow from sale of the new PC with 2 licenses) will be compared to projected cost of supporting the PCs or losing sales to the secondary market; use those projections to set portion of cost to be born by initial buyer vs. secondary market. Publish results of trials in periodicals, pass successful procurement language to other universities, state purchasing offices, and Fortune 1000 companies.
54
7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. University or college environmental and software teams, paid internships, faculty stipends. WR3A has already posted one paid internship, being filled by Middlebury College in Vermont. Administration and consulting fees. This project is being moving ahead by would be completed more quickly and results distributed more widely through outside funding. Est. cost $75K Meeting Participants Interested in this Proposal Name Organization Sheila Davis SVTC Jonathon Latko Temple University Georgiana Ball Virginia Dept of General Services- Recycling
55
Additional Similar Proposal Idea Developed at the National Electronics Meeting for Group “D” Idea: Operating System for Used Machines Proposed by: Unknown Group/Individual Description: Software and licensing is too stringent; the use of operating systems on machines sent for reuse is too difficult, due to copyrights. Without operating systems, machines are not useful. Alternative licensing or operating systems to extend the useful life of equipment should be explored. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Willie Cade Computers for Schools Jonathon Latko Temple University Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc.
56
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM
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 3. 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 gopald@svtc.org
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.
57
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. 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.
58
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. 11. 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. 12. 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 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. 13. 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. Meeting Participants Interested in this Proposal Name Organization
59
60
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM Project Title: Central Texas Plastic E-scrap Recycling Pilot Project Name of Lead Organization: Goodwill Industries of Central Texas Project Staffing Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Rebecca Hays, Recycling Manager Title: Staff Names and Christine Banks, Director, Environmental Business Titles: Services Address: 1015 Norwood Park Blvd, Austin, TX 78753 Telephone: 512.637.7177 Email: Rebecca.hays@austingoodwill.org What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? City of Austin, Dell Inc., Axcess Technologies, Goodwill Industries International What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? Polymer Options What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Must comply with all of Goodwill Industries of Central Texas Electronic Waste Management Guidelines (http://www.computerrecyclingproject.com/guidelines.html ) Project Description The Central Texas Plastic E-scrap Recycling Pilot Project will be a multifaceted project intended to determine an economically feasible, viable, and environmentally-friendly process for recycling plastic e-scrap while diverting materials from the wastestream. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes The goal and desired outcome is to determine and implement an economically feasible, viable, and environmentally-friendly process for recycling plastic e-scrap while diverting materials from the wastestream. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. GICT is currently successfully operating an e-waste recycling operation. GICT’s Computer Works facility processes an average of 36,000 lbs of material per month and 1,872, 000 pounds per year. While most of the e-waste is able to be refurbished or recycled, plastic contained mainly in the frame of the computer, in printers, and in keyboards, poses a huge dilemma. In Austin, there is not an economically viable solution to recycling plastic. Globally, approximately 315 million computers will become obsolete between 1997 and 2004. Each computer contains on average 13.8 pounds of plastic thus resulting in 4 billion pounds of plastic e-waste. A study, conducted by the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, reported the estimated total of plastic e-scrap was
61
more than 1 billion pounds annually. At a local level, it is estimated that 15% of all computer and computer-related materials donated to Goodwill contain a large majority of plastic content. 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 information learned and success of the Central Texas Plastic E-scrap Recycling Pilot Project can be directly applied to this scalable and repeatable model. There is a great potential for transferability of the innovation because GICT is part of a network of 207 Goodwill organizations (184 in North America) and a member of the Goodwill E-waste Task Force. This project would serve as a valuable component of that successful e-waste program. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). This project will take a four phase approach which will include an initial research and auditing process, implementation and testing, analysis, and training. Task Task 1- Research and compile list of plastic escrap recyclers. Task 2- Develop auditing form Task 3- Select recyclers to work with and begin sending material. Task 4- Track metrics Task 5- Analyze and report data. Task 6- Develop Toolkit & Training Module Task 7- Present findings Task 8 -Conduct Training workshop Phase 1 Objective Establish a list, with contact info., of plastic e-scrap recyclers serving the Central Texas Region and whom could potentially meet the needs of other Goodwill Organizations nationwide. Provides downstream vendor info Process plastic for recycling in order to divert material from landfill. Use metrics to make data-driven decisions. Use critically analyzed data to determine which recycler is most economically feasible and/or environmentally-sound. Develop material that will benefit GICT and other Goodwill organizations Use pilot project experience as a knowledge-sharing opportunity Participants will leave with a well-developed plan. Timeline
month 1
Phase 2
month 2-7
Phase 3
month 8-9 month 10 month 1112
Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. During the project, a number of variables will be measured including but not limited to: preparation processes (sorting, baling, load size), practices and procedures, transportation, costs, and potential revenue. This data will be compared with our baseline measures for current processing methods of plastic e-scrap and used to determine which 62
Phase 4
method is economically feasible, viable, and environmentally-sound. The following performance-related measures will demonstrate this: savings in disposal methods, savings through adoption of new technologies, waste diverted from disposal, amount of recycling capacity increased, demonstrable cost-effectiveness of greener processing, demonstrable increases in recycling or diminished landfill waste, and demonstrable increases in viable disposed articles being recycled. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. Currently committed resources: • Goodwill Industries of Texas- Staff (Recycling Manager, Financial Analyst, Webmaster, Production Supervisor, Warehouse Staff, Equipment (baler, forklift, pallet jack w/scale) • Partner Resources- Axcess Technologies (donation of materials, off-site storage, collaboration on research), • Partner Resources- Goodwill Industries International (dissemination of information, collaboration on training) Remaining Resources needed: • • • • • Information, Research, and Data on Plastic Recycling Plastic Recyclers to participate Funding for Transportation of Materials Partners for collaboration in establishing a scalable and repeatable model Project assistant/intern
Meeting Participants Interested in this Proposal Name Organization Willie Cade (keep Computers for Schools informed) Rodney Clara Formerly of SF Goodwill Jim Lynch Compumentor Sheila Davis SVTC Heather Bowman (keep HP informed) Ted Campbell South Carolina Dept of Commerce-Recycling Courtney Murrill Goodwill Industries J. Ray Kirby PAZ Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. Miesche Francis (keep Target infomed) Verena Radulovic (keep EPA informed) Chris Newman (EPA EPA Region 5
63
funded a study on this. Results may be of interest) Andy Niles Bob Harris Jay Hutchins Richard Pastor (keep informed) Steve Coe Neil Peters-Michaud Pat Frank Scott Pencer Craig Boswell
BDC Electro Goodwill Industries International Wal-mart Virginia DEQ Cascade Asset Management Global Investment Recovery Noranda Recycling HOBI
64
COLLABORATIVE PROPOSAL FORM
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 how the system will be impacted
65
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 addition, we are also seeking funding through federal and foundation research grants. Meeting Participants Interested in this Proposal Name Organization Jeremy Gregory MIT Verena Radulovic EPA Sheila Davis SVTC 66
Mark Izeman Willie Cade Mike Heth Steve Coe Seth Heine Monica Becker John Bullock Al Chaney Georgiana Ball Jim Sheire Sego Jackson Kara Reeve J.Ray Kirby Ted Smith Pete Muscanelli Courtney Murrill Chris Beling Rick Goss Mac Bybee Elizabeth Grossman Jim Puckett Sarah Westervelt Mick Schum Steve Wyatt Wayne Rifer Scott Klag Steve Hirsch Sonya Breehey Chris Newman Craig Boswell Heather Bowman Maria Socolof Pamela Brody-Heine
NRDC Computers for Schools Nxtcycle Virginia DEQ Collective Good RIT IPMI Computer Recycling for Education Virginia Dept of Commerce-Recycling Philips Snohomish County Clean Water Action PAZ SVTC IAER Goodwill EPA EIA SWANA BAN BAN WeRecycle! Computers and Ed. Corp. Rifer Environmental Metro County, Portland, OR ISRI IPC EPA Region 5 HOBI HP Abt Associates, Inc. Brody-Heine Consultants
67
Additional Proposal Idea Developed at the National Electronics Meeting for Group “D” Idea: E-Waste/Electronics management system model (in Virginia) Proposed by: Harry Gregori, harry.gregori@envirsol.com Description: Describe, design, implement and operate an ongoing electronics recovery, recycling operation in Virginia to serve as a model for effective, environmentally sound and financially viable ewaste management system for national consideration.
68
Additional Proposal Idea Developed at the National Electronics Meeting for Group “D” Idea: [Federal government] develop financing programs for qualified recyclers, capital needs for advancement/expansion Proposed by: Unknown participant/group Description: Grant or low interest rate loans to help recyclers establish better 1) best in-class practices 2) facilities 3) equipment 4) software and 5) certification Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Jeff Mace Technology Exchange Bob Harris BDC Electro Willie Cade Computers for Schools Courtney Murrill Goodwill Industries
69
Additional Proposal Idea Developed at the National Electronics Meeting for Group “D” Idea: Global Regulatory Inequity- analysis Proposed by: Unknown participant/group Description: Gap analysis of reuse and recycling regulation worldwide as it affects electronics with case studies on economic impact in an effort to improve sustainability
70
Additional Proposal Ideas Developed at the National Electronics Meeting for Group “D” Idea: Develop model state legislation that would scale to a regional and, ultimately, national solution to avoid unnecessary compliance costs. Idea: Model code for National legislation. Similar to uniform commercial code, the code would be drafted by the existing “uniform code committee” (not necessarily its official name) and would provide a model statute for consideration by appropriate legislature(s) (i.e. national or state). It would include national electronics recycling infrastructure and financing mechanism(s). It would allow an independent entity to use its expertise to draft a uniform model. Idea: Create a voluntary multi-interest coalition to craft legislation for a comprehensive national end-of-life system. Components would include financing mechanisms, EMS (with certification), disposal ban, TOP (per NEPSI), public procurement, enact national mercury notification. Timeline would be to craft this in less than one year. Nominations for coalition members include EIA, NW Product Stewardship Council, NERC, CERC, Computer Takeback Campaign, iSRI, IAER, BAN, NEWMOA, PSI, Leasing Trade Association. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this general proposal idea: Name Organization Suellen Mele Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation Scott Klag Metro County Sego Jackson Snohomish County Marc Pearl CERC Frank Marella Sharp Mark Murray Californians Against Waste Greg King Willie Cade Computers for Schools Scott Klag Metro County Lisa Sepanski King County Pamela Brody-Heine Brody-Heine Consultants John Anderson Toshiba Terri Goldberg NEWMOA Steve Hirsch ISRI Theresa Stiner Frank Coolick New Jersey DEP Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. Jay Hutchins Goodwill Harry Gregori
71
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 11. Project Title
Bringing the US into Compliance with International Waste Trade Law 12. Name of Lead Organization
Basel Action Network, Computer TakeBack Campaign 13. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Jim Puckett, BAN coordinator Staff Names and Titles: Sarah Westervelt, Ewaste project coordinator Address: 122 S. Jackson St., Suite 320, Seattle, WA. 98104 Tel: 206-652-5555 Email:jpuckett@ban.org
3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved in your project? The member organizations of the Computer TakeBack Campaign. We can expect the support of the current E-Stewards (over 30 electronics recyclers who have signed the Electronics Recycler’s Pledge of True Stewardship). 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? The project will by necessity need to involve legal staff of the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department. So far these persons have not been cooperative in this effort. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? A commitment to the principles of being good global neighbors, supporting environmental justice everywhere on earth, sustainable development and compliance with international agreements. 14. Project Description. Currently the US Administration is in breach of its international treaty obligations (see attached) and fail to properly recognize the treaty obligations of the majority of countries which might be recipients of US e-waste via export. Rather than rectify this situation, the EPA and State Department continue to allow a free trade in the export of hazardous electronic waste. The program will explore legal and political options to bring the U.S. into compliance as soon as possible. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. 72
While it is difficult to find avenues for citizens to demand their nation’s compliance with international law, legal and political strategies will be developed including exploring avenues for legal action, and at the same time we will seek Congressional support for an investigation by the GAO and Congressional Hearings. Proposals for properly amending the Plug In to E-cycling criteria to be compatible with the Basel Convention and its decisions with respect to export will be developed. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. If the US were to correctly implement its obligations under the 1986 OECD accord, they would be requiring all exporters of e-waste to notify the US authorities, prior to export, obtain consent from the recipient country. Further this agreement empowers EPA to forbid exports, particularly if such exports are not going to a technically adequate disposal facility. This agreement, the precursor to the Basel Convention still applies to the United States legally but not in practice. The US has illegally removed wastes from its RCRA notification and consent requirements simply because they are to be recycled. While this OECD accord fails to go as far as the Basel Ban Amendment, in curtailing cost-externalizing hazardous waste trafficking, it would allow for far greater transparency and data gathering, and in fact based on that scrutiny alone would mean that much of the current e-waste tide of exports would be stemmed. By continuing to allow a free trade in hazardous waste, which was meant to have been forbidden as early as 1986, the current effects sadly continue: a) an obstacle to the development of national e-waste recycling, b) a disincentive for green design, c) a perpetuation of environmental injustice, and d) a violation of international law – a foreign relations liability. Without addressing this illegal export real progress in solving the e-waste crisis will be unlikely. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. As long as export of hazardous wastes to developing countries is condoned, it will be very hard for legitimate US recyclers, those that truly internalize the costs of e-waste, to compete. Currently, most of the recyclers that are doing things in accordance with the Electronics Recycler’s Pledge of True Stewardship, are operating at under-capacity. Once it becomes unacceptable to use downstream export avenues for hazardous waste then the service of recycling can finally flourish and the global goal of national self-sufficiency in hazardous waste management (Basel Convention) can be realized. 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. National, although formal global protests, e.g. to the OECD and Basel Convention secretariats may be considered. 14. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). The first 6 months will be used to liaise with members of Congress and legal experts. The next 3 months will be used to finalize the strategy. The next 15 months will be used to implement the plan. 73
15. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. Success will be measured by whether the United States first accepts its responsibility under the OECD regime and makes the appropriate emergency rule amendments to come into compliance and second, whether it amends it’s programs like the Plug-Into E-Cycling Guidelines to be compatible with the Basel Convention, and third and finally, whether the United States agrees to ratify the Basel Convention with the Basel Ban Amendment. 16. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. Currently committed resources: $5,000 from BAN We are seeking others who want to develop the strategy and accomplish this task and who can contribute financial, pro bono legal, other expertise and resources. ANNEX 1: US non-compliance with OECD treaty obligation. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Sego Jackson Snohomish County Kara Reeve Clean Water Action Hilary Miller Maryland Dept of the Environment Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. Jim Lynch Compumentor Seth Heine Collective Good Heather Bowman (keep HP informed)
74
Projects from Group “E” Seeking input for existing efforts
75
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. Project Title Retailer Electronic Product Take-back: Sustainable In-store Collection Project 2. 3. Name of Lead Organization Snohomish County/Northwest Product Stewardship Council Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Sego Jackson, Principal Planner, Snohomish County Staff Names and Titles: staff from Cities of Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, Counties of Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Thurston, WA State Ecology and EPA Region 10 Address: 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Everett, WA 98201 Tel: 425-388-6490 Email: sego.jackson@co.snohomish.wa.us Role(s) in Project: collaboration with national retailer, playing various roles. 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? This is an initial project proposal that will require the commitment of one or more national retailers to provide implementation leadership. The retailer will then work with government project partners to determine additional desirable partnerships, such as manufacturers, if needed. Other partnerships are not sought at this time though interested entities can make their interest known. 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? See above. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Requirements are: national retailer, stores in Washington state, desire to seriously explore implementing sustainable on-going in-store take-back of electronics under current conditions. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). One or more national retailer leaders will stage implementation of on-going in-store take-back beginning with its Washington state stores. Recent pilots have proven that instore take-back is logistically viable and very popular with customers. The retailer(s) will use lessons learned to establish a sustainable program under current conditions using end of life fees. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. The goal is to assist one or more national retailers with the design and staged implementation of a sustainable national program. The project will be tested in Washington state locations before national implementation. The overall long-term goal is to make recycling electronics as easy as it is to buy electronics by making voluntary instore take-back by major retailers one component of a diverse and robust collection infrastructure. We will use lessons learned from previous pilots and programs to establish sustainable on-going, in-store take-back programs under current conditions. 76
4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. This project addresses the lack of infrastructure for convenient collection opportunities for electronics. There are no on-going in-store take back programs for computer systems and televisions established by major retailers in the U.S., yet there is great need in most communities for collection opportunities. A commonly stated goal is for customers to find it as easy to recycle electronics as it is for them to buy electronics. Achieving this goal will require that national retailers assist in establishing voluntary instore collection services as part of a larger diverse collection infrastructure. Temporary pilots and programs have shown in-store collection to be logistically feasible and popular with customers. However, under current conditions, retailers must be careful to not get “dumped on”, exceed capacity of their stores and staff to handle materials, or incur high costs or store impacts. Enough is now known that we can assist retailers to design in-store take back programs that are beneficial to themselves and their customers, minimize store impacts, and can operate under current conditions (lack of financing system in place in most states). 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. See above. The intention of this effort is to demonstrate sustainable on-going in-store take-back under current conditions as part of the business model for one or more retailers as a significant step towards national implementation. This is a critical collection strategy that can be put in place now, prior to front end financing, with or without disposal bans and regardless of other collection programs being in place. Retail industry leaders will be provided with local expertise and support in developing and implementing a plan for a sustainable program in Washington. That program will then be assessed and adjusted prior to national roll out. 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. See above. The program will be implemented in Washington state as the first stage and demonstration of a program expected to be expanded regionally and nationally. However, we offer our support and expertise if the retailer(s) prefers to establish a national program without first staging it in within Washington. Decisions regarding sequencing will be made by the retailer. The NWPSC has affiliates in Oregon and contacts in other states through the Product Stewardship Institute, who can assist with simultaneous implementation in Oregon and other states if desired by the retailer partner(s). 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). The initial step is for one or more national retailers to express interest in this collaboration by Earthday 2005 (April 22). Expressing interest does not obligate the retailer. After follow up discussions, the retailer and project sponsors will confirm their commitment to work together by June 1. The actual implementation schedule and program roll out will then be determined by the retailer, with advice from assisting partners, and will likely be confidential. 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. 77
Success will be measured by having a minimum of one national retailer establish ongoing in-store collection of computers and/or televisions throughout Washington state as a result of this collaboration. Government partners will produce a report of key findings that may be beneficial to others, including aggregated numbers of materials collected, etc. Proprietary information will be kept confidential or will be released by the retailer 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. Key resource needed is strong leadership, vision and business savvy from one or more retailers who believe that corporate citizenship, good customer service, and profitability are interrelated. The government partners have extensive background that will be offered to the partner retailer(s) from working with 35 small retailers and businesses to establish the end of life fee based Take it Back Network for e-product drop off recycling, working in support of various retailer collection programs and pilots (Good Guys, Office Depot, Staples, Best Buy), and on-the-ground expertise, as well as participating in and advising numerous regional and national efforts, including a new project to establish a Multi State Third Party Organization. Expertise includes program design, meeting coordination, logistics, market conditions, regulations, handling procedures, media, promotion, customer surveying, staff training and more. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Willie Cade (keep informed) Computers for Schools Pat Frank Global Investment Recovery Sheila Davis SVTC Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. Lynn Rubinstein NERC Ted Smith SVTC Suellen Mele (keep informed) Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation Ali O’Donnell (keep Sears informed) Kara Reeve Clean Water Action Jeff Mace Georgiana Ball (keep Virginia Dept of General Servicesinformed) Recycling Chaz Miller National Sold Wastes Management Association Scott Pencer Noranda Recycling Miesche Francis (keep Target informed) Steve Wyatt CRC Brenda Tongetti Tech Cominco Metals, Ltd. Jeff Tucker DN American Richard Pastor (keep Wal-mart informed) Frank Marella Sharp Chris Newman (keep EPA Region 5 78
informed) J. Ray Kirby (keep informed) Marc Pearl (keep informed) Sarah Westervelt Ed Nevins Lisa Sepanski Seth Heine Brian Hamlin Sonya Breehey Doug Smith Verena Radulovic (keep informed) Heather Bowman (keep informed) Jim Sheire Jade Lee
PAZ CERC BAN JVC King County Collective Good California Resource Recovery Association IPC Sony EPA HP Philips Supply-Chain Services (SSI)
79
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. Project Title: Electronics Recycling Collaboration Network (ERCN) 2.Name of Lead Organization International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER) 3. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Peter Muscanelli Staff Names and Titles: IAER President Address: P.O. Box 16222 – Albany, NY 12212-6222 Tel: 888-989-IAER (4237) Email: info@IAER.org Role(s) in Project: Facilitator of ERCN 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? • International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER) • Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) • American Plastics Council (APC) • Polymer Alliance Zone (PAZ) • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) • International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (iNEMI) • National Recycling Coalition (NRC) • White House Office of the Environmental Executive (OFEE) • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? The 10 organizations (above) have been involved and committed to the objectives of the ERCN for several years. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Major national or international organizations with constituencies and programs involved and committed to the development of an effective and efficient infrastructure for electronics recycling. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The members of the ERCN collaboratively seek to reduce the environmental impact of electronic equipment use and disposal through continuous improvements to the reuse, demanufacturing, and recycling of surplus electronic equipment as well as the design of new electronic equipment. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes.
80
The members of the ERCN agree to work together, within the limits of their respective authorities, policies, and without entering in a contractual relationship, on the following objectives: 4. Encourage growth of the infrastructure for the reuse, demanufacturing, recycling of obsolete equipment. 2. Promote the implementation of best life cycle management practices for electronic equipment and share identified best practices with those within and outside the ERCN. 3. Strive for "zero waste" in the disposition of electronic equipment and associated packaging material. 4. Make sure that the ERCN’s work has scientific underpinning. 5. Coordinate and cooperate on other public and private sector efforts aimed at achieving similar objectives. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. A national program for the collection and recycling of electronic products needs the participation and support of multi-stakeholder groups that represent and serve the interests of constituencies that are involved and interested in building an effective and efficient infrastructure for electronics recycling. The ERCN is comprised of major organizations that can meet that need and collectively are committed to that objective. 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. The ERCN, as a multi-stakeholder group, facilitates the collaboration of major organizations and their constituencies to support projects, programs and information exchange related to electronics recycling. The ERCN can provide inputs and perspectives on proposals and plans for national programs as well as draw upon a broad base of resources to support the implementation of programs. 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 organizations involved in the ERCN have national and international presence, membership and activities. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). The ERCN was established several years ago and actively communicates and cooperates in a variety of programs. The ERCN is available as a multi-stakeholder group to help in the development and implementation of a national program in electronics recycling. 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. The ERCN meets periodically (by teleconference and face-to-face) to update each organization on their activities and explore opportunities and needs for collaborative efforts. The ERCN also participates in a special session of the Electronics Recycling SUMMIT every year to report on the activities of the organizations and discuss relevant issues.
81
7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. The ERCN is a collaboration between established organizations. Each has its own resources to draw upon and contribute to collaborative efforts. No funding is sought for the ERCN. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Brian Hamlin California Resource Recovery Association Sonya Breehey IPC Harry Gregori Environmental Solutions, Inc. Maria Socolof Abt Associates, Inc. J. Ray Kirby (keep informed) PAZ Juan Lopez OFEE Chris Newman EPA Region 5 Ali O’Donnell (keep Sears informed) Todd Hill TruCycle & IAER Shane Thompson RBRC Georgiana Ball Virginia Dept of General ServicesRecycling Mac Bybee SWANA Steve Coe Virginia DEQ Cynthia Keidel UNICOR Kevin Johnson Target Jim Lynch Compumentor Henry Garcia GRC Wireless Recycling Monica Becker RIT Linda Middleton NEC Mike Heth Nxtcycle Jason Linnell NCER Andy Niles Scientific Recycling, Inc. Rick Goss EIA Craig Boswell HOBI Bob Tonetti EPA
82
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FORM 1. Project Title: Electronics Recycling Summit 2. Name of Lead Organization International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER) 3. Project Staffing 3a. Lead and Staff Contact Information Lead Name and Title: Peter Muscanelli Staff Names and Titles: IAER President Address: P.O. Box 16222 – Albany, NY 12212-6222 Tel: 888-989-IAER (4237) Email: info@IAER.org Role(s) in Project: Sponsor 3b.What other stakeholder groups or partner organizations have committed to being involved your project? The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Electronics Recycling Collaboration Network (ERCN) 3c.What other stakeholder groups have you contacted to be involved in your project? The IAER and IEEE have partnered as co-sponsors of the Electronics Recycling SUMMIT for a number of years. The ERCN was formed several years ago and actively participates and supports the SUMMIT event. 3d. What criteria do groups need to meet in order to collaborate on this project? Major national or international organizations with constituencies and programs involved and committed to the development of an effective and efficient infrastructure for electronics recycling. Participation in the event, including in the program itself, involves and is open to any organization that meets these criteria. 4. Project Description (limit to 50 words). The Electronics Recycling SUMMIT (held in conjunction with the ISEE Conference) was established to support the building of the recycling infrastructure for the electronics industry. It is intended to provide a forum for all the stakeholders and interested parties related to the issues and opportunities involved in the recycling of electronics products and facilitate collaboration among them. 4a. Project Goals and Desired Outcomes. • Focuses on the challenges of building an efficient and effective infrastructure. • Fosters the collaboration of the industry, government, and academic sectors towards common goals. • Provides a unique opportunity for attendees to participate in multiple high caliber meetings and events at one location and time. 4b. Description of how this collaborative project fits an unmet need. The Electronics Recycling SUMMIT, in conjunction with the ISEE Conference, has come to be recognized as THE major event on the environmental and recycling aspects of electronics, drawing broad-based participation from all the sectors involved. The 83
results of these events have led to consensus and actions in a wide variety of areas that address the needs and challenges of electronics recycling. The SUMMIT process is sustained by collaboration between a group of organizations that share an interest in supporting electronics recycling – the Electronics Recycling Collaboration Network (ERCN). 4c. Description of how this effort supports the development of national ecycling infrastructure. The SUMMIT facilitates the exchange of information, ideas and dialogue between organizations and individuals involved and interested in the development of an effective and efficient infrastructure for electronics recycling. It is the one annual event where all major stakeholder groups are represented and participate in a collaborative forum. 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 participants in the SUMMIT represent organizations with a national or international presence and scope of activities in relation to electronics recycling. 5. Briefly describe anticipated STEPS AND TIMEFRAME to implement project (i.e communication plan, community outreach, education efforts, project monitoring, etc.). The Electronics Recycling SUMMIT is held annually in conjunction with the International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (ISEE) – this year on May 16-19 in New Orleans. The planning and preparation for the event involves individuals from a wide variety of leadership organizations who work together throughout the year. 6. Describe your plan for MEASURING AND SHARING results of project. The SUMMIT event includes a variety of forums, panel sessions, presentations, workshops and meetings that collectively report and share a broad range of information and ideas related to the issues and challenges involved in electronics recycling. All of the available presentations and results are posted on the SUMMIT’s public web site. 7. List resources needed for collaboration on this project. Describe resources already committed and by whom. Describe remaining resources sought. The resources of the co-sponsors (IAER and IEEE) are committed to the continued support of the SUMMIT event. No additional resources are being sought at this time – other than the open invitation for participation in the planning, preparation and program for the annual event. Meeting participants that expressed interest in this proposal: Name Organization Mike Heth Nxtcycle Jeff Mace Technology Exchange Ted Smith SVTC Marc Pearl (if having retailer CERC input could prove to be beneficial) Michael George Ricoh Steve Wyatt Computers and Education Corp. Sonya Breehey IPC 84
Micah Chambliss Rona Cohen Todd Hill Greg Sampson Rick Goss Delores Rodgers-Smith Clare Lindsay Marc Leff Neil Peters-Michaud Bob Harris Jay Hutchins Conrad Melancon Steve Coe Grant Mydland Aaron Ezroj Willie Cade
ERT Council of State Government truCycle & IAER EIA EPA Region 4 EPA GRC Wireless Recycling Cascade Asset Management BDC Electro Goodwill RMS Communications Virginia DEQ CompTIA University of California Computers for Schools
85
86