Electronics recycling firm denied environmental certification

The announcement yesterday (July 5, 2011) that Intercon Solutions of Chicago, IL was “delisted” from R2 Certification and denied an e-Stewards Certification demonstrates that these third party audit programs actually have some teeth in them.  The grounds for denial are that Intercon exported containers of electronics to Hong Kong in violation of the “e-Stewards standard and it is likely also to violate the importation laws of Hong Kong, the U.S. Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Illinois state law governing the conduct of registered electronics recyclers,” claims the Basel Action Network (BAN) – the host of e-Stewards. 

Intercon released a statement shortly thereafter purporting it “does not export hazardous waste.”  Depending on how one defines hazardous waste, Intercon might be right, but it can also be the case that they violated the commonly acceptable limitations on e-waste export codified by the e-Stewards and R2 standards.

I know that the e-Stewards review process, in coordination with the certifying body conducting the audit, is required to hear appeals to its decisions.  Jim Puckett of BAN states that they presented clear evidence of the export trail (which anyone can do by tracking container numbers from a generator site to the final destination, see: http://www.track-trace.com/container) and Intercon continued to deny the claim.  Now that government authorities are getting involved, and lawyers have been hired, more information will come to light.

It is clear there is a vast amount of used electronic equipment and parts shipped around the world for commerce, treatment, or cheap dumping.  Some of these exports are for legitimate commerce while others are exported to avoid the proper treatment and recycling that may cost more.  With the recent re-introduction of federal legislation on e-waste exports, the U.S. government can have more resources at its disposal to prevent institutions from externalizing its cost for proper management of e-waste. 

Until that legislation gets enacted (which is low on the priority list of Congress), watchdog groups, the media, social networks, and certifying bodies will be the ones patrolling the industry.  So far, they have exposed companies who claim to be doing the right thing when, in fact, they are not.  Still, there are many companies operating outside of the radar screen who are happy to profit from cheap exports.  It will be interesting to see when they are exposed and what the reaction will be.

Comments

[Charm Henry]

Yes, I do think that authorities should be more cautious about such electronic recycling sites. People get easily attracted with cash for phones offers these days. Thanks for sharing. I hope this will serve as a lesson to other companies as well.

[Charm Henry]

Yes, I do think that authorities should be more cautious about such electronic recycling sites. People get easily attracted with
cash for phones offers these days. Thanks for sharing. I hope this will serve as a lesson to other companies as well.

[IT Disposal]

Hmm,

I do like the sounds of this. Hong Kong of course is once again a part of china, who's laws from recollection have prohibited the import of e-waste, or what we'd call WEEE. Unlike europe though, the US does not have a clear definition of e-waste and re-usable electronics (WEEE and REEE respectively). However, referencing the Basel convention, which I'm sure will come into play in this legal battle, does provide black and white requirements, including prohibiting the trans-continental movement of CRTs. Bet there's a few faulty laptop batteries and mercury filled backlights in amongst those loads as well.

[Computer Repair Guy]

Thanks for this information. But when I hit subscribe. I get what appears to be corupt XML code google chrome flags as harmful.

[sell my mobile]

Thanx for sharing such an important info. Lots of people do think that recycling their electronics will help the environment but they hardly cares abt. checking its authenticity or whether it follows the recycling guidelines or not! Such step from the authorities are always welcome!

[red sole]

let's join our hands together to stop this kind of wrong doings. It may risk lives in the future if we just let them continue.

[Scrapdawg]

I have several years in the Chicagoland electronics recycling industry and am an provisional E.H.& S.O. at present overseeing R2 standard implementing. A few issues arise over this story. R2 does NOT prohibit exports, as e-stewards & the Basel Action Network do. R2 standards require that in the case of CRT's (which is what Intercon was accused of doing) R2 requires companies follow the CRT RULE which require that companies notify the US EPA when shipping overseas.
There is a big difference in those two req.'s and this is why e-stewards walked (out some years back) on a joint venture to draft a united certification with sponsorship by both. This even resulted in e-stewards accusing the EPA of a half-hearted approach to responsible recycling.
Interestingly, Intercon has said all along it didn't ship any CRT's to Hong Kong and has sued BAN in IL court to produce the supposedly elusive confidential documents/records that they say shows Intercon to be culpable even though this is not illeagal.
Greenpeace and BAN are now in apparent alliance. Greenpeace while having admirable motives has shown itself to use radical, underhanded and even dangerous tactics in promoting causes and I wonder if this is inspiring e-stewards in the same extreme processes.
For my part I go along with the present EPA policy i.e. CRT rule. It strikes me as odd however, that our lawmakers are seeking to prohibit any end-of-life electronics or components to be purchased and exported to Asia / China, where so many originated in the first place. Something seems one sided about that to me.