[FreeGeek] Emergency Free Geek Meeting - minutes from July 17

[Ifny]

Emergency Free Geek Meeting

When: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 7:00pm
Place: Free Geek Headquarters, 117 East 2nd Ave.
Facilitator: Paul
Scribe: Jeff
Minutes Checker: Ifny
Attendance: David, Joe, Simeon, Richard, Rhianon, 
Sean, Scott, Shab, Roc, Jeff, Paul, Ifny

This was an emergency public meeting to discuss 
the Recycling Council of BC's Computer Reuse 
Standard, which aims to establish standards for 
quality control among reuse organizations.


* Background

The provincial government's e-waste recycling 
program comes into effect on August 1.  At last 
May's RCBC conference in Whistler, some RCBC 
members (including Free Geek) expressed concern 
that the program has no provision for reuse.  In 
response, RCBC has been developing its Computer 
Reuse Standard program, which aims to establish 
standards for quality control in the reuse of 
e-waste through a process of certifying groups 
involved in the refurbishing and reuse of old 
hardware.  The certification program will not be 
mandatory, but obviously it would greatly benefit 
Free Geek to be certified.

A few days ago RCBC sent David Repa several draft 
documents pertaining  to the program and asked 
for feedback; their aim is to finalize the 
documents by August 1.  As David announced in an 
earlier email to the general mailing list, the 
draft documents have been posted to the FreeGeek wiki:

http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/RCBC_proposed_%22BC_Computer_Reuse_Standard%22

David and Ifny called the July 17 meeting so that 
Free Geek members would have a chance to discuss 
the documents and develop an official response to 
the program as it is currently proposed.  Each 
document was discussed in
turn.


* Residual Lifespan Criteria

This document outlines criteria for determining 
whether a piece of hardware should be reused or 
discarded.  Under these criteria, only recent, 
relatively powerful machines running Windows (or 
recent Macs) would be eligible for reuse; 
everything else would have to be discarded. (See 
the wiki for more details.)

The group raised a number of concerns:

-The proposed criteria don't allow for free or 
open-source software, and reinstalling existing 
proprietary operating systems likely requires 
purchasing a new license.

-Lots of the donations we receive
wouldn't meet these criteria even though older 
machines can be quite useful -- for example, the 
14 LSTP workstations in the computer lab
wouldn't meet the criteria, despite being 
perfectly appropriate for a work/education 
environment. They were made from P2s.

-Computers are treated as a whole, with no
provision for dismantling machines and reusing or 
replacing parts (or repurposing old parts for 
other purposes, like using old printer components 
for robotics projects).

-Educational, repurposing, experimental, or 
artistic re-use should not be excluded from 
consideration.

In general, the proposed minimum requirements
are extremely simplistic and don't apply well to 
practical applications/problems of reusing
computer technology. Such "minimum requirements" 
were almost entirely rejected by the group.

It was noted that the program's desire to ensure 
that obsolete equipment was not dumped on 
consumers is a good one. The spirit of reuse 
however is severly crippled in the draft.

Sim suggested that a requirement for refurbished
equipment to be "marketable" (i.e., likely to 
appeal to end-users) might be better. He commented 
that the focus seems to be on being a collection 
point, at the expense of other things.

Ifny noted that maybe RCBC's original idea was to 
ensure that only legimate, working equipment was 
sent overseas. She proposed if that was case, some 
minimum requirements might be restricted to 
working items shipped abroad. This would help 
ensure that developing countries get easily usable 
equipment, while allowing groups in BC to find 
creative ways of reusing as much hardware as 
possible.  It was noted that Free Geek does not 
consider sending workable items to poorer 
countries to be appropriate, since there is no 
sustainable recycling infrastructiure.


* Pledge of Stewardship

To be certified by RCBC, reuse organizations would 
have to sign (and be bound by) a 10-point "BC 
Computer Reuse Organization Pledge of 
Stewardship." FG members had problems with many of 
the points in this pledge.  Contentious points 
from the pledge are reproduced below, with FG 
members' comments following.

"1. We will not allow any residual computer waste 
that is not suitable for reuse to be sent to solid 
waste, landfills or incinerators for disposal or 
energy recovery, either directly or through 
intermediaries."

  - Members thought FG should get clarification on 
whether "incineration" includes smelting.

"2. We commit to ensuring that unusable 
electronics will be directed for safe 
environmentally responsible recycling through the 
approved provincially mandated e-waste stewardship 
program."

  - This point would force FG to recycle discarded 
e-waste through Encorp, thus preventing us from 
seeking better, more environmentally friendly 
alternatives.

  - Dave proposed mandating transparency, rather 
than mandating who the recycler is.

  - Sim suggested rewording this point to say 
"...recycling that meets the minimum standards set 
by the provincial program."  It was observed that 
the program's minimum standards aren't explicitly 
defined; in theory, Encorp's practices would be 
the de facto minimum standard.

  - Ifny suggested more articulated standards, 
like BAN's (e.g. no prison labour, not shipping to 
non-OECD countries)

  - Members noted that forcing everyone to go 
though Encorp might at least keep some 
disreputable recyclers from cutting corners (e.g., 
shipping toxic waste materials to other 
countries).  However, everyone felt that this 
requirement was unacceptable.

Points 3-5 were acceptable to all members, except 
that point 4 should read "reload AN operating 
system" rather than "reload THE operating system." 
It was stated that installing an operating system 
after data wiping is good for data security. 
However, there is no good reason that only the 
previous operating system should be reinstalled. 
Any operating system would do, including Linux.

"6. We agree to provide ESBC with details as to 
the number of whole units collected as well as the 
number of whole units donated or sold on an annual 
basis. We will also document and report the number 
of whole units and the volume of components, by 
weight, diverted for recycling through the BC 
stewardship program."

  - Several members objected to this on the 
grounds that ESBC is an industry group rather than 
a government or civil society group.

  - Members discussed why this data would be 
collected (to provide an audit trail; to use in 
the recycling program's PR materials, demographic 
info).

  - Support was expressed at the potential to make 
other organisations more transparent.

  - Joe suggested that these details should be 
provided to "the public" (e.g., by posting them on 
FG's website) rather than giving them to ESBC. 
Members supported this proposal.

"7. We agree to adhere to environmentally 
responsible operating methods as well as municipal 
and provincial bylaws and regulations. We will 
ensure that any unregulated wastes will be 
disposed of in an environmentally responsible 
manner in line with the spirit of the Recycling 
Regulation. We will provide liability insurance 
for accidents and incidents involving wastes under 
our control and ownership."

  - Members had no problem with the first two clauses.

  - The question of insurance was subject to much 
debate.  Some members felt that environmental 
insurance was a good idea; others felt that 
requiring environmental insurance could push 
smaller reuse groups (possibly including FG) out 
of business.  Members expressed concern for both 
environmental protection and corporate 
responsibility.

Ultimately the issue was tabled pending more 
research before FG takes a stance on this subject.


"8. We will ensure due diligence throughout the 
period that the product is in our procession with 
a transparent and documented record of the chain 
of possession from acquisition to dispensation."

  - Members again felt this point was simplistic, 
since "product" requires clarification. How does 
it relate to components of a computer?

  - There was concern that FG would have to assign 
part numbers to all parts of disassembled machines 
to satisfy this requirement.  Paul suggested that 
if it came to that, we could probably discount 
most parts as peripheral and only track major 
components like motherboards.

  - Ifny noted that we don't want to have to track 
the original donor of each item, since doing so 
would raise privacy concerns and would be 
labor-intensive.

"9. We agree to support BC's regulated Electronics 
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program by 
streaming residual E-waste to the program for 
disposal, providing information and data to assist 
in program monitoring and evaluation, providing 
feedback to improve program performance and 
cooperating with program stakeholders."

  - Members were not comfortable with being 
required to "support" EPR; we want FG to be free 
to criticize the program if need be, and be an 
organisation that the public can trust to be 
unbiased. Cooperation with program stakeholders 
was particularly problematic and requires 
clarification

Members had no objection to point 10.


* Qualification Questionnaire

To be certified by RCBC, reuse organizations would 
need to complete a questionnaire.  Members felt 
that the questionnaire was acceptable.  It
was noted that some of the questions, such as the 
one about waste permits, could apply to FG, and 
that it would be worthwhile to follow up on those 
points.

Ifny proposed anti-oppression training could be 
part of our own "industry" training.


* Further Discussion

Ifny read out an email from the Basel Action 
Network which outlined its stance on various 
pertinent issues, such as shipping refurbished 
hardware to developing countries and the hazards 
of smelting.  Members strongly approved of BAN's 
opinions.  BAN invited FG to incorporate this 
material into its response to the proposed reuse 
standards. Ifny will post BAN's opinions on the FG 
website. They are also included at the bottom of 
these minutes.

Members discussed whether it would be all right to 
share the RCBC draft documents publicly.  Since 
there was no restriction on sharing them when FG 
received them, members felt it probably wasn't a 
problem. We are extremely pleased to have been 
consulted for feedback and included in
this loop.

A draft response will be sent to the general 
mailing list by Thursday. Members agreed that FG's 
response should recognize that, despite our 
significant reservations about the draft 
documents, the provincial program is a major step 
in the right direction.

Ifny suggested a press release to coincide with 
BAN movie night on Aug 2.  The Communications 
workgroup will help to draft the press release.




The following is BAN's statement:

----------begin cut----------

Basel Action Network maintains that:

-----	Advanced recycling fees are not a good 
financing mechanism in that they do not involve 
the manufacturers in the end-of-life management of 
their products, and thereby do nothing to drive 
redesign for the environment and human health.  If 
manufacturers have to pay for end-of-life costs 
(e.g. via incorporating these costs into the price 
of a new product), then they have a direct 
economic incentive to redesign their products to 
be less toxic, more upgradeable, more easily 
recycled, and perhaps longer lived.  Ultimately, 
toxic waste issues must be addressed upstream in 
the manufacturing phase of a product’s lifecycle.

-----	Reuse of electronics is environmentally 
preferable to destruction, but only if tested 
working and labeled equipment with a long life is 
allowed into the reuse market, and particularly 
the developing countries.  Both the EU and 
Australia have developed detailed criteria for 
determining when a used electronic is a product 
acceptable for exporting for reuse, or is a waste, 
based on interpretation of the international 
treaty (Basel Convention) that governs the trade 
in toxic wastes. (www.basel.int)  Our criteria for 
tested working equipment would allow for older 
equipment that runs on open source software to be 
allowed into the reuse market, if it is tested and 
fully functional, and has a reasonable life 
expectancy.

-----	Refurbishment/repair of equipment generated 
in developed countries such as Canada or the US 
must occur in the developed world prior to export 
to developing countries, if those repairs will 
result in the replacement or removal of a 
hazardous part (such as circuit boards, CRTs, 
fluorescent lamps, batteries, etc.)   In order to 
determine what types of repairs are needed, 
testing must be accomplished.

-----	Smelters play an important role in 
reclaiming metals from materials.  Because 
smelting always creates toxins, it is important to 
only use smelters that use the best technology to 
minimize the creation of dioxins and furans, and 
to capture toxic air emissions.  Circuit boards 
and other metal-bearing e-scrap generated in 
developed countries should only be smelted in 
developed countries.  We support the use of 
smelters in countries such as Canada, US, Belgium 
and Sweden, rather than using smelters in the 
developing countries.   We do not support sending 
this entire e-waste stream directly to smelters, 
where much of the materials are not reclaimed, but 
rather are burned (which is a form of disposal, 
including waste-to-energy processes.)  End-of-life 
electronics should be manually or mechanically 
separated and subsequent materials sent for 
material separation and reuse (e.g. plastics back 
into plastics usage, etc.) rather than burned or 
used as BTUs in a thermal process, even in 
waste-to-energy facilities.  Thermal processing of 
plastics impregnated with brominated flame 
retardants can create brominated dioxins and 
furans at certain temperatures.

----------end cut----------