E-waste: Recyclers, scrap haulers vie to keep U.S. computer trash home→

How the federal government dumps half a million worn-out computers and countless other electronic devices every year may help expand the $5 billion electronics recycling industry. The Environmental Protection Agency and General Services Administration are considering new rules of engagement for contract recyclers as they start requiring agencies to dispose of old computers, monitors and other electronic waste.

The agencies said they will decide next year on which third-party certification to apply to electronics recyclers under the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship, which was unveiled this summer.

Green recyclers and traditional scrap haulers are at odds over the certification standards, one of which would ban exporting computer trash, along with other restrictions. Both sides agree that the U.S. agency mandate could transform the industry.

“By some estimates, the federal government goes through 10,000 computers a week,” GSA Administrator Martha Johnson said in an Aug. 9 statement. “Requiring that each of those machines end their useful lives at a certified recycler could mean big business.”

$5 billion industry

The U.S. electronics recycling industry employs 30,000 people and accounts for $5 billion in annual revenue, said David Daoud, personal computing analyst for International Data Corp. in Framingham, Mass. That amount could double if consumers follow the lead of federal agencies and companies, he said.

Jeremy Farber, founder of Chantilly-based PC Recycler, agreed. “When the federal government starts requiring something,” he said, “it trickles down.”

Kenny Gravitt, chief executive at Global Environmental Services, a recycler in Georgetown, Ky., that reclaims copper and aluminum from circuit boards and other components, said the entire U.S. economy would benefit from the export ban.

“I would like to see an edict come out that there will be no more exporting of electronic waste,” he said. “When that happens and the GSA opens up the playing field to qualified and serious recyclers, it’ll create jobs.”

Gravitt’s three-year-old company has added 100 employees to process electronics for companies including Japan’s Canon and Konica Minolta Holdings, attracting the GSA’s Johnson for a visit last month, he said. The company plans to pursue a GSA multiple-award schedule contract for environmental services.

The E-Stewards program, developed by environmentalists at the nonprofit Basel Action Network, bans exports of electronics waste to developing countries and focuses on getting end users to recycle, Daoud said.

A less restricting standard, called Responsible Recycling, or R2, is promoted by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, a trade association. Industry considers R2 more business-friendly because it factors in business operations, revenue and profits, in addition to a company’s environmental record, for certification.

“Both certifications are essentially driven by competing interests, competing philosophies,” Daoud said. “The two are bound to clash, and that’s creating confusion among consumers.”

GSA, EPA weigh options

The GSA will propose changes to procurement regulations in February, while the EPA will lead the evaluation of the two certification standards.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has not taken a position but also says the government recycling mandate will have an industrywide impact. “A robust electronics recycling industry in America would create new opportunities to efficiently and profitably address a growing pollution threat,” she said in a Sept. 2 e-mail.

The plan from the EPA and GSA as presented does not outright ban exports of electronics waste, which troubles some environmentalists.

“A lot of used electronics are managed very badly, and they get exported to developing nations,” said Barbara Kyle, national coordinator for the San Francisco-based Electronics TakeBack Coalition, of which the Basel Action Network is a member.

Complicating the federal drive to regulate e-waste are state laws, including in Maine, California and Connecticut, that each use varying approaches to requiring electronics makers to collect e-waste from consumers and businesses.

“Some of these states have had these programs three or four years now and are running them somewhat successfully,” PC Recycler’s Farber said. “For some states that have nothing, they’re not going to want to do it either, because they’re doing nothing for a reason.”

To date, major original equipment manufacturers have self-regulated e-waste processing because “manufacturers don’t want to hire a bad recycler,’’ said Walter Alcorn, vice president of environmental affairs for the Consumer Electronics Association, an industry group in Arlington County. “There is PR risk and environmental risk.”

Dell, the largest supplier of personal computers to the federal government, has had e-waste disposal programs since 2004 and takes back old units from federal customers in exchange for credit toward future buys, said Mike Watson, director of compliance for the Round Rock, Tex.-based company.

The company has banned exports by its third-party recyclers. Watson, though, played down any conflict between the two certifications, saying they are more similar than different.

“This is just a beauty contest, and we choose not to get engaged in beauty contests,’’ Watson said.

First Recycler Indicted for Exporting Toxic E-Waste→

In the first case where criminal charges have been brought against an electronic-waste exporter, the federal government today charged two executives of Executive Recycling Inc., a Denver, Colorado electronics recycling firm, with multiple crimes. Executive Recycling CEO Brandon Richter and Tor Olson, vice president of operations, were indicted on 16 counts, including wire and mail fraud, environmental crimes, exportation contrary to law, and destruction, alteration, or falsification of records.

The charges were brought in conection with shipments of e-waste going to developing countries. Informal processing of e-waste without safety provisions can cause serious health and pollution problems. Some electronics, such as the cathode ray tubes of old computer monitors, contain lead, cadmium, beryllium, and others may contain brominated flame retardants.

The federal government first became aware of the alleged violations following an investigation by Basel Action Network, BAN, a Seattle-based toxic trade watchdog.

After 30 months of investigations, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations team and a team from the U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation Division laid charges today.

The investigation was brought to public attention when BAN worked with CBS's 60 Minutes news magazine in an episode entitled "The Wasteland."

In 2007 and 2008, BAN volunteers photographed 21 sea-going containers at Executive Recycling's loading docks that they tracked across the world, with most ending up in China.

BAN then alerted the Government Accountability Office and 60 Minutes, and together the groups documented U.S. businesses posing as responsible electronics recyclers but instead shipping e-waste to developing countries where it was processed in what BAN calls "deadly, polluting operations."

"This is a major victory for global environmental justice," said BAN Executive Director Jim Puckett.According to the federal grand jury indictment, Executive Recycling was responsible for at least 300 such exports, including shipments of more than 100,000 toxic cathode ray tubes that netted the company $1.8 million.

"Even before we have a U.S. law in place to explicitly prohibit this dumping on developing countries, the U.S. government's criminal justice system has recognized the massive toxic trade we first discovered in 2001 as fraudulent, as smuggling, and as an environmental crime," said Puckett. "Now these sham recyclers are warned: their shameful practices can land them in jail."

Legislation has been proposed in both the House and the Senate to prohibit the export of toxic electronic waste to developing countries.

Such an export prohibition already exists in Europe.

In 2008, the U.S. Government Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, criticized the EPA and uncontrolled e-waste exports in a strongly worded report. EPA enforcers themselves have said that the United States lacks clear laws to combat the global e-waste dumping practice.

"Sadly, Executive Recycling is just the tip of the e-waste iceberg," said Puckett. "They are but one of hundreds of fake recyclers who sell greenness and responsibility but in fact practice global dumping."

Puckett advocates passing federal legislation to ban dumping e-waste in developing countries. He urges anyone disposing of electronic waste to use only Certified e-Stewards® Recyclers who will not export old toxic computers and TVs to a developing country.

Executive Recycling still operates in the Denver area and has had e-waste recycling contracts with the cities of Denver, Boulder, and Broomfield and the El Paso County and Jefferson County governments.

The company is registered with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment as a "Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste."

The United States is the world leader in producing electronic waste, tossing out about three million tons each year.

China already produces about 2.3 million tons (2010 estimate) domestically, second only to the United States. And, despite having banned e-waste imports, China remains an e-waste dumping ground for developed countries.

According to a report by UNEP titled, "Recycling - from E-Waste to Resources," the amount of e-waste being produced - including mobile phones and computers - could rise by as much as 500 percent over the next decade in some countries, such as India.

Grand jury indicts owner and former VP of Executive Recycling→

Two men from Colorado were indicted on Friday for shipping electronic waste overseas illegally. The U.S. Justice Department says Executive Recycling, Inc. sent cathode ray tubes, which are found in older computer monitors, to countries overseas, including China, to dispose of them.

Because of that, 36-year-old Brandon Richter of Highlands Ranch, owner of Executive Recycling, and 36-year-old Tor Olson of Parker, former vice president of Executive Recycling, were indicted by a federal grand jury on Thursday. They both face charges of wire and mail fraud, environmental crimes in connection with the failure to file a notification to export hazardous waste and destruction, alteration or falsification of records.

The Justice Department says between February 2005 and January 2009, the company created a scheme to defraud various business and government entities who wanted to dispose of their e-waste.

The company said it would dispose of the waste in an environmentally friendly manner and said it would not be sent overseas.

Instead, investigators say the waste was sent overseas and it was not disposed of in an environmentally safe way.

Executive Recycling execs indicted; environmental crimes alleged→

A federal grand jury in Denver has indicted two executives from Executive Recycling, a metro-area electronics recycling company, after a three-year investigation into allegations they dumped hazardous computer waste overseas instead of reusing and reselling it domestically. Executive Recycling, based in Englewood, was profiled in a 60 Minutes expose in 2008 about the environmental and human toll of disposing of used computers and electronics, or ewaste, in China and other countries.

Investigators from the Environmental Protection Agency raided the business in early 2009 and seized records under a search warrant.

The agency and other investigators have declined to discuss the case publicly since then.

The grand jury indicted Executive Recycling CEO and own Brandon Richter, 36, of Highlands Ranch, and former company vice president Tor Olson, 36, of Parker, on charges of wire and mail fraud as well as environmental crimes.

The indictment, released Friday alleges, the two exported hazardous ewaste — mostly monitors with cathode-ray tubes (or CRT) — without a proper EPA license, and then they altered, destroyed or falsified records about the shipments.

Interviewed by the DBJ as the investigation started in 2008, CEO Brandon Richter claimed ignorance about the overseas shipments of ewaste — first uncovered by Seattle-based environmental group Basel Action Network — and blamed what 60 Minutes reported on a Canadian company it contracted.

“We thought it was going to Canada or just to be sold here in the United States,” said Richter.

The EPA investigation, the indictment said, connected Executive Recycling to more than 300 exports of ewaste between 2005 and 2008, including 160 exports that shipped more than 100,000 CRT monitors.

Executive Recycling told clients — including the governments of Boulder, Broomfield, El Paso County and the Jefferson County and Cherry Creek school district; and The Children’s Hospital, Centura Health Hospital, the Denver Newspaper Agency, and ADT Security — that all the electronics they collected from them would be reused or disposed of in accordance with all environmental regulations.

Instead, the indictment said, Richter and Olson made more than $1.8 million selling the ewaste to companies that shipped them abroad, presumably so the ewaste would be dismantled to recover tiny amounts of precious metals they contain.

The electronics, especially CRT monitors, contain lead and other hazardous materials, and the dismantling of ewaste can poison the area where it’s done, and be harmful to the people involved.

To read the entire release issued by the U.S. Attorney's office, click here.

To see a copy of the Executive Recycling Indictment, click here.

First Federal Criminal Charges Brought Against Recycler for Exporting Toxic e-Waste→

After 30 months of investigations, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and EPA Criminal Investigation Division handed down multiple criminal charges today against two executives of Executive Recycling Inc., a Denver, Colorado electronics recycling firm. The government first became aware of the alleged violations following an investigation by the Basel Action Network (BAN), a Seattle based organization dedicated to combating toxic trade. The investigation became highly publicized after BAN worked with CBS’s 60 Minutes news magazine in an episode entitled “The Wasteland.” It is the first instance that criminal charges have been brought against an e-waste exporter. In 2007 and 2008, BAN volunteers photographed 21 sea-going containers at Executive Recycling’s loading docks that they subsequently tracked across the world, with most ending up in China. BAN then alerted the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and 60 Minutes, and together the groups documented US businesses posing as responsible electronics recyclers but who instead were simply shipping e-waste to developing countries where it was processed in deadly, highly polluting operations. The resulting 60 Minutes episode has since become one of the most popular and award winning in the program’s history.

“This is a major victory for global environmental justice,” said BAN Executive Director Jim Puckett. “Even before we have a US law in place to explicitly prohibit this dumping on developing countries, the US government’s criminal justice system has recognized the massive toxic trade we first discovered in 2001 as fraudulent, as smuggling, and as an environmental crime. Now these sham recyclers are warned: their shameful practices can land them in jail.”

Currently, legislation has been proposed in both the US House of Representatives and the Senate to prohibit the export of toxic electronic waste to developing countries. Such an export prohibition already exists in Europe. The US has been behind in enacting such rules, and in 2008, the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) was highly critical of the EPA and uncontrolled e-waste exports in a strongly worded report. EPA enforcers themselves have lamented that the US lacks clear laws to combat the global e-waste dumping practice.

According to the federal grand jury indictment, Executive Recycling was responsible for at least 300 exports, including shipments of more than 100,000 toxic cathode ray tubes that netted the company $1.8 million. Executive’s CEO, Mr. Brandon Richter, together with Mr. Tor Olson, Vice President of Operations, were indicted on 16 separate counts including wire and mail fraud, environmental crimes, exportation contrary to law, and destruction, alteration, or falsification of records.

Executive Recycling still operates in the Denver area and has had e-waste recycling contracts with the cities of Denver, Boulder, and Broomfield and the El Paso County and Jefferson County governments. It is registered with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment as a “Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste.”

“Sadly, Executive Recycling is just the tip of the e-waste iceberg,” said Puckett. “They are but one of hundreds of fake recyclers who sell greenness and responsibility but in fact practice global dumping. This is why we must pass federal legislation prohibiting this activity. And this is why all those disposing of electronic waste should use only Certified e-Stewards® Recyclers who will not export your old toxic computer or TV to a developing country.”

E-Trash: Stemming The Tide Of Global Trade Of High-Tech Toxic Waste→

A strange ceremony took place earlier this summer on the fourth floor of a small office building in the center of Seattle, this famously forward-looking city in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Important executives from the South Korean consumer electronics group LG had traveled there to sign an agreement with the Basel Action Network (BAN), an American NGO that opposes the international trade of toxic waste, especially waste derived from computer and electronic products, or WEEE (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment).

“It’s historical,” said BAN founder Jim Puckett during the July 26 event, when LG committed itself to working only with certified recycling firms to take care of its toxic waste. In doing so, LG agreed to be part of the “e-Stewards” program, which BAN launched in 2010. Currently about 20 firms, including Bank of America and the U.S. branch of Samsung, have made the same pledge and thus been granted “e-Stewards” labels.

“People often ask me why we collaborate with firms like these, which don’t really have a reputation for defending the environment,” says Puckett. “I answer these questions by saying that once these firms get involved in this process, they are forced to reflect on their whole production chain and on its impact on the environment.”

“[The corporations] are not perfect, but, in the past years, we have made more progress by working directly with these firms than by trying to put pressure on the American administration, even since President Barack Obama came to power.”

BAN’s primary concern is the export of toxic waste from industrial countries to Asia or Africa, where the products are treated – or often just burnt – with little regard for the environmental or health risks involved.

America leads rat pack

The United States has a particularly bad reputation when it comes to this kind of toxic trading. It is the world’s top producer and exporter of electronic waste and it has never ratified the 1989 Convention of Basel, which regulates the “transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal.” BAN estimates that between 50 and 100 WEEE containers travel everyday – quite legally –from the United States to Hong Kong, Asia’s principal port of entry.

The European Union, in contrast, decided in 1997 to forbid the export of dangerous waste to countries that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a wealthy nations club.

Puckett, a former film director, began to take an interest in industrial pollution after studying the unclear waters of Washington’s Puget Sound, a complex system of interconnected marine waterways and basins close to Seattle. He then joined Greenpeace, led a campaign for the tightening of the Basel Convention and became a crusader against WEEE.

“I created BAN in 1997 because we needed to turn theory into practice. Industrialized countries and their firms could not continue using free trade and globalization as a pretext to externalize their coasts at the expense of the poorest,” says Puckett. “I started in the basement of my house in Seattle. BAN began to make a name for itself when we started focusing on WEEE, which affects everybody, firms and consumers, at different levels.”

His method is simple: go into the field, collect personal accounts (using a hidden camera if necessary) and then use the documents to put pressure on the firms. He can explain in details the horrifying conditions by which computers, TV sets and other kinds of devices coming from the West are cut up in China, Vietnam, Nigeria and Ghana by people working with absolutely no protection. People sometimes work in open garbage dumps where they breath in toxic fumes everyday and wade about in waters fouled by heavy metal contaminants.

The certified recycling companies that participate in the “e-Stewards” program commit themselves not to export to foreign countries the waste that has been entrusted to their care. Instead they agree to treat it themselves, using techniques that respect both the environment and take into account health risks.

There are about 50 certified recyclers in North America. Participating firms finance a little more than a half of BAN’s annual budget of 1 million dollars through fees they pay to enjoy the “e-Stewards” label. The program aims to expand internationally and BAN plans to open an office in Brussels.

Indeed, Europe is not as virtuous as it seems. WEEE materials are trafficked illegally, with some exporters using fake declarations. According to Puckett, one common practice is to ship electronic waste under the guise that the machines are “second-hand” goods than can then be resold. In reality, the products are just pure garbage destined for the dump. “The companies just want to get rid of the WEEE,” the BAN head says.

Read the original article in French

E-waste solution must involve us all: JPAC→

The creation of programs to create awareness of the effects of e-waste on health and the environment, as well as the involvement of bigger, global players to take advantage of their leadership, best practices and opportunities in Canada, Mexico and the United States, are among the recommendations to the Council of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America, released today by a panel of citizens of the three countries. As part of the forum organized by the CEC’s Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) in Montreal, Canada, on 21–22 June 2011, the document submitted to Council strongly recommends that the three NAFTA countries endorse the principles of the Basel Ban Amendment of the Basel Convention to provide an internationally consistent, legal restraint on the abuse created by market forces that externalize the costs of e-waste to less developed countries.

In its recommendations, JPAC recognizes the work of the CEC and the governments of the three countries to address e-waste and praises their inclusion in the CEC's Operational Plan of initiatives to collect, track and coordinate data that will facilitate e-waste management and enforcement.

However, the panel recommends that a much wider and more inclusive definition of e-waste be embraced, one that will expand CEC projects beyond the focus on “computers and monitors.”

JPAC also highlights the need to pay special attention to promoting North American recycling and upgrading practices, ranging from consumer habits to green design initiatives that would extend lifecycles and place design emphasis on components that are less toxic and more easily recycled, or that can be upgraded rather than requiring complete replacement.

The full text of JPAC’s Advice to Council is available online, along with the video of the public forum held in Montreal and the expert presentations delivered there.

LG Electronics First to Commit to Certified E-Waste Recycling Worldwide→

LG Electronics Inc. (066570.KS) today announced a commitment to use third-party certification for verifying how its electronics waste is recycled worldwide. By becoming the first e-Stewards Enterprise, LG will give preference to electronics recyclers worldwide that meet and are certified to the "e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment."

The international standard, developed by the non-profit Basel Action Network (BAN), with the advice of industry leaders and health and environmental specialists, is the world's most rigorous certification program for electronics recyclers. It prevents the export and dumping of toxic electronic waste in developing countries.

The standard also calls for strict protection of private data and occupational health safeguards to ensure workers in recycling plants are not exposed to toxic dusts.

"This is historic," says BAN Executive Director Jim Puckett. "To have a company like LG, with more than 90,000 employees working in 120 operations on five continents, embrace the e-Stewards program around the world will not only significantly protect human health and the environment from toxic pollution but will raise the profile of the e-Stewards internationally. It speaks volumes about LG's commitment to environmental leadership."

In 2010, LG recycled over 8 million pounds of home electronic products in the US, free of charge to consumers.

Currently, there are e-Stewards Enterprises in the US, Mexico and UK, and several are moving through the certification process in Canada.

Last week, the US government made its first effort to address electronics waste. An Interagency Task Force issued a report outlining purchasing and recycling guidelines for the federal government.

BAN praised the report for a strong emphasis on green design and the need for certified recyclers. But the nonprofit criticized the report for failing to address what is considered to be the most serious e-waste problem - e-waste exporting to developing countries.

Currently, most US electronic waste is exported to developing countries by US companies that claim to be recyclers, only to be bashed, burned, flushed with acids, and melted down in unsafe conditions in developing countries.

LG Electronics Commits to Using the Most Responsible e-Waste Solution Worldwide→

The non-profit Basel Action Network (BAN) and LG Electronics today announced that LG Electronics Inc. is the first "Global e-Stewards Enterprise," a company committed to responsible recycling of its electronic waste and choosing to use e-Stewards® Certified electronics recyclers worldwide. "This is historic," said BAN Executive Director Jim Puckett. "To have a company like LG, with more than 90,000 employees working in 120 operations on five continents, embrace the e-Stewards program around the world will not only significantly protect human health and the environment from toxic pollution but will raise the profile of the e-Stewards internationally. It speaks volumes about LG's commitment to environmental leadership."

The company has been leading the way in responsible electronics recycling in the United States. The LG Electronics Recycling Program provides consumers with a convenient and responsible way to dispose of used, unwanted, obsolete or damaged consumer electronics products. In 2010, LG recycled more than 8 million pounds of home electronic products in the United States, free of charge to consumers.

"LG has always been committed to providing consumers the highest quality products available while reducing the environmental impacts of the manufacturing and use of those products," said Dr. Skott Ahn, president and chief technology officer, LG Electronics, Inc. "Our partnership with BAN and e-Stewards demonstrates LG's equal commitment to reducing the impacts of products at the end of their life."

By becoming an e-Stewards Enterprise, LG will give preference to electronics recyclers that meet and are certified to the "e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment."

The international standard, developed by BAN, with the advice of industry leaders and health and environmental specialists, is the world's most rigorous certification program for electronics recyclers. It prevents the export and dumping of toxic electronic waste in developing countries. The standard also calls for strict protection of private data and occupational health safeguards to ensure workers in recycling plants are not exposed to toxic dusts.

Currently, there are e-Stewards Recyclers in the United States, Mexico and the UK with several in progress in Canada.

As the primary sponsor of the Champions of the Earth award, the United Nations flagship environmental award, LG contributes more than $600,000 annually to raise awareness of environmental issues at the regional and global levels and to help develop practical solutions.

"Sustainability is a core value at LG," said Wayne Park, president and CEO of LG Electronics USA. "From our ambitious carbon reduction commitments, to our industry-leading efforts to bring high efficiency ENERGY STAR® qualified products to market, to our support for environmental efforts around the world, reducing environmental impact, while enhancing consumers' lives through innovation. Life's good when you live green."

LG Takes Leading Role In Environmental Sustainability Programs→

Programs Aim to Enhance Product Recycling, Hazardous Substance Management, Energy Conservation, and Environmental Stewardship. LG Electronics (LG) is furthering its commitment to "Green Management" by empowering its business units and subsidiaries to take greater responsibility for the entire lifecycle of LG's products, from production to disposal.

LG has joined the Basel Action Network (BAN), a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Seattle, Wash. that monitors the trade of toxic products and fights environmental degradation. LG and BAN plan to work together to expand the scope of "e-Steward Enterprise," a program designed to encourage the responsible disposal of electronic goods, which has previously been limited to North America and the UK. As part of the agreement, LG and BAN hope to jointly develop and participate in the "Global e-Stewards Enterprise" program, enabling companies to responsibly recycle electronic e-waste worldwide.

BAN is the best-known NGO in North America dealing with the verification of waste disposal companies, developing programs for toxin management and the surveillance of hazardous articles. The aim of the agreement between LG and BAN is to further protect the environment by sharing LG's knowledge with respect to cutting-edge electronics development processes and BAN's unique stewardship capabilities.

Earlier this year, LG was named exclusive consumer electronics partner of the "Keep America Beautiful" (KAB) environmental organization in the United States. LG is a top national sponsor of KAB's Great American Cleanup and America Recycles Day. Approximately 1.5 million tons of used electronics have already been collected this year with the help of a million participants.

According to LG's Environment Report released this week, almost 200,000 tons of used electronics products had been collected globally, an increase of 19 percent over the previous year. LG is cooperating with the city of Ulsan, a major industrial and manufacturing center in Korea, to collect used electronics parts free of charge. Over the first half of 2011, LG collected 279 tons, including 2,240 refrigerators, 115 washing machines and 3,545 mobile phones, as well as various other products in Ulsan.

What's more, LG is the first company in Korea to have signed a collection agreement with a local government. In this case, Ulsan takes responsibility for collecting the used electronics for free and LG takes on the task of processing them using eco-friendly methods. This agreement is a small but important piece of LG's overall plan to increase the quantity of used electronics goods year by year, while improving the company's resource recycling capabilities and management of hazardous substances.

LG is also leading the way in bringing the most high efficiency products to market. The company was recently recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy for having eight LG televisions and five LG washing machines - more than any other manufacturer - qualify for the "ENERGY STAR® Most Efficient" label. The ENERGY STAR Most Efficient designation recognizes the most efficient products among those that qualify for the ENERGY STAR.

"In the 21st Century, multinational companies like LG must step up and take a greater role in working to protect the environment. This commitment is not just about recycling; it is about making changes to the entire production process, right from the factory floor all the way to the final disposal of the product," said Jong-min, Shin, Vice President of LG's Eco Strategy Team. "LG understands this commitment and what it means to our customers, and the company is working hard to become a global leader in this regard."

Federal E-Waste Effort Gets Mixed Reaction from Environmental Coalition→

An Interagency Task Force - chaired by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, and General Services Administration, today released "A National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship." The report makes a variety of important recommendations to promote green design of electronics, and to improve handling of e-waste coming from federal agencies. According to environmental groups, the report has some good recommendations on green design and on using certified recyclers, but it completely fails to address what is generally recognized as the most serious e-waste problem - e-waste exporting to developing countries. One of the report's stated goals is to ensure that the federal agencies will "lead by example" in managing their used electronics.

"We are very disappointed that the Task Force missed the opportunity handed to them by President Obama's mandate to truly lead by example and ensure that all federal agencies do the right thing and not export obsolete used electronic equipment unless it is fully functional," said Barbara Kyle, National Coordinator of the Electronic TakeBack Coalition, a national environmental coalition which promotes responsible recycling of e-waste. "We have other companies like Dell, HP, Apple, Samsung that have set the leadership bar there, so I don't understand why our own federal government can't do the same with its own e-waste."

"Sadly, this report is a living contradiction," said Jim Puckett, Executive Director of the Basel Action Network. "On the one hand it claims to promote responsible recycling and job creation here in the U.S., but then does nothing to prevent e-waste exporting, which squanders our critical metals resources, and poisons children abroad while exporting good recycling jobs from our country. This report shows why we need Congress to pass the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act, now under consideration in both the Senate and Congress, to truly address this issue."

Currently, most U.S. electronic waste is exported to developing countries by many U.S. companies that claim to be recyclers, to be bashed, burned, flushed with acids, and melted down in unsafe conditions in developing countries. Eighty percent of children in Guiyu, China, a region where many "recycled" electronics wind up, have elevated levels of lead in their blood, due to the toxins in those electronics, much of which originates in the U.S. The plastics in the imported electronics are typically burned outdoors, which can emit deadly dioxin or furans, which are breathed in by workers and nearby residents.

ETBC applauds the commitment by the GSA to use its purchasing power to promote greener products, and to get involved in the standards setting processes.

"We think it's appropriate that the country's largest electronics purchaser, especially one using taxpayer dollars, do everything possible to advocate for products that are less toxic, longer lasting, and more recyclable," said Barbara Kyle.

Scuttling Plan for USS Radford Renews Reef Dispute→

Contractors are preparing to scuttle the USS Arthur W. Radford 20 miles east of Fenwick Island off the coast of Delaware. The 563-foot destroyer will be yet another addition to an artificial reef program that has drawn fire from environmentalists and others, The Washington Post reported.The goals of the sinking include creating a new ocean habitat and a tourist destination, while also discarding outdated Navy ships. However, with artificial reefs expanding up and down the nation's sea coasts, environmentalists and federal and independent scientists are questioning the presumed ecological benefits.

"They're throwing debris down there and saying it's an economic opportunity, but they're not looking into the environmental impacts," Colby Self, who co-authored a report on the Navy's sinking program, told the Post.

Only a few studies have examined the impact of artificial reefs. State and federal officials are particularly concerned about whether traces of toxic chemicals that remain on the scrubbed ships pose a hazard and whether the ships end up concentrating fish, thereby making it easier to catch them.

The question of whether artificial reefs provide ecological benefits has "been out there for 50 years or more," said Jeff Tinsman, of Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. "If that was any easy question, it would have been answered long ago."

Donald Schregardus, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for the environment, told the Post that the Navy simply responded to states' requests. "We let them decide what they want and if they have an interest in these ships," Schregardus said. "We are not the experts on whether they are increasing [fish] populations or whether they are the attraction for divers and fishermen. But we want to make sure they're safe."

Jon Dodrill of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission told the Post that PCB levels in reef fish near the site of the USS Oriskany spiked a year after the aircraft carrier was sunk in 2006 but have since dropped below advisory levels.

The Radford, scheduled to be sunk in late July or early August, participated in the Persian Gulf War as well as the Navy's bombardment of Beirut in the early 1980s. The ship was decommissioned in 2003, the Post reported.

Sinking a Navy Ship Off O.C.: A Toxic Idea?→

The proposed sinking of an old Navy ship off Dana Point to create an attraction for divers could come with toxic side effects, including PCBs, an environmental group opposed to ship scuttling contends. But the group proposing the idea, backed by the Dana Point City Council, says all toxic material would be stripped from the craft, the USNS Kawishiwi, before it is placed underwater.

"There's no way we would ever put a ship down with anything like PCBs, or any kind of pollutants in it," said Ron Springer, part of a non-profit group called California Ships to Reefs. "We will follow the EPA guidelines to the letter."

The proposal by the Orange County representatives of the group, based in Wheatland, erupted into a minor controversy after a Washington Post story Sunday.

The story says PCB contamination in fish caught near the U.S.S. Oriskany, sunk off the Florida coast in 2006, spiked a year later, though levels have declined since.

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are a class of organic compounds that had a variety of uses, including as coolant in transformers, before they were banned in the United States in because of neurotoxic effects.

"From what we are seeing, there are very little post-sinking studies," said Colby Self of the Basel Action Network, which opposes sinking ships for use as reefs. "We are concerned about continuing the program when we see vessels with toxics in it, without really knowing the impacts."

Members of the Ships to Reefs group said they would not seek the EPA waiver necessary to send a ship to the bottom with any contaminants still on it.

"We will clean her extensively," he said. "We will take any of the fuels out, and have them washed out. We will pull all of the contaminated wire off the ship prior to ever putting her down."

The Kawishiwa is now moored at the Suisan Bay Reserve Fleet near San Francisco.

Any attempt to sink the ship near Dana Point is at least three to five years away, Springer said.

State Fish and Game officials received confirmation July 5 from the Maritime Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, that the Kawishiwa is available to be "considered for reefing."

But while the Dana Point City Council signaled its approval of the idea in 2008, more approvals are needed before it can be sunk; the sinking also would cost between $2.3 million and $5 million, said Ships to Reefs chief administrative officer Eleanore Rewerts.

"It's not an inexpensive process," said Kim Riddle, spokeswoman for the Maritime Administration.

Ship Sinking Programs Waste Taxpayer Dollars, Squander Valuable Resources, Jobs And Pollute The Sea→

A new report, "Dishonorable Disposal," by the Basel Action Network (BAN), and subsequent investigation by The Washington Post, uncovers the wasteful legacy of the U.S. Navy's ship sinking programs. This first-ever comprehensive analysis of ship ocean disposal by way of target practice exercise or "artificial reefing," cites new toxicological data demonstrating contamination of seafood, and an economic analysis revealing lost recycling jobs, wasted taxpayer dollars, and squandered resources at the center of the government's ship disposal program. Recently, the Pentagon quietly pulled back on plans to sink the USS Forrestal and three other aircraft carriers earlier this year, deciding instead to recycle these vessels domestically, based on economic factors. However, the Navy is now ignoring the rationale that led them to that decision and is moving ahead with plans to sink two vessels annually for military exercises (called SINKEX) in the Gulf of Alaska, one of the richest fishing grounds in the world. Another naval vessel will soon be sunk as an "artificial reef" - the Ex-Arthur Radford, a 563 foot Navy destroyer. The Radford sinking, planned for later this month if not stopped by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will be the largest ship dumped as an artificial reef off the eastern seaboard.

The EPA and Navy admit that toxic chemicals are deposited into the marine environment as a result of ship sinking operations, including asbestos, lead paint, antifouling paint containing tributyltin (TBT), polybrominated diphenyl esters (PBDEs) and notably polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a suspected carcinogen that has been targeted for global phase-out and destruction under the Stockholm Convention. As yet unreleased fish sampling data gathered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, cited in BAN's report, reveals startling toxic leaching from the scuttled aircraft carrier Ex-Oriskany, an artificial reef sunk in Florida waters in 2006. The report reveals that PCBs were leached into surrounding waters and taken up by fish at levels exceeding the Florida Department of Health fish consumption advisory levels. However, no public health warnings have been issued since the discovery of this contamination.

"The harmful effects of PCBs include cancer, reproductive problems and memory loss, with the risk greatest for children and unborn babies. PCBs may also cause similar problems in wildlife," said Dr. Alan Duckworth, research scientist at the Blue Ocean Institute at Stony Brook University in response to the report. "It is therefore disturbing that the U.S. disposes of obsolete vessels by sinking them, promoting the release of toxins like PCBs into our food chain. To prevent the contamination of our seafood it is essential that we have zero tolerance for intentional PCB dumping at sea."

BAN also found that the U.S. government's ship sinking programs have escalated in recent years. From 1970-1999 the ship sinking programs accounted for approximately eight percent of all vessel disposals, but from 2000-2008, sinkings accounted for an alarming 70 percent of all disposals. Roughly 100 vessels containing an estimated 600,000 tons of recyclable steel, copper and aluminum, worth an estimated half a billion dollars have been dumped at sea over the past decade alone.

In a time of tight budgets and careful use of taxpayer money, the report reveals that the U.S. government spent a total of $25 million on the dumping of just four ships as artificial reefs in the past eight years. Total reefing costs amounted to $554 per ton. In contrast, the cost of recycling retired vessels for metals recovery in these same years was an average $67 per ton.

While the SINKEX program allows the Navy to fire on inactive naval warships to practice gunnery and torpedo accuracy, there are more reasonable methods now demonstrated as viable and available, such as computer simulations, or use of clean barges and inflatable targets. Further, contrary to popular belief, the sinking of waste material at sea as artificial reefs may actually be detrimental to species populations, as it concentrates fish and allows for overfishing.

According to BAN, domestic ship recycling is the only acceptable disposal method, as it properly contains and disposes of toxic waste, recirculates critical metals resources into the domestic marketplace to reduce reliance on the dangerous and damaging primary metals mining industry while creating green U.S. jobs. BAN's report calls for an end to government sponsored ocean dumping programs and calls for a national policy that always favors domestic recycling.

Artificial reef projects raise environmental questions→

The USS Arthur W. Radford, a 563-foot naval destroyer, once rode the waves. Now it will break the tides.Private contractors are preparing to sink it into the Atlantic Ocean, the latest addition to a Navy recycling program that turns outworn battleships into marine life habitats.

The Radford will go down 20 miles east of Fenwick Island, where officials are hoping it will prove a powerful lure for fish - and tourists - on the sandy sea floor.

"It should dramatically increase the use of dive boats operating on all three states' ports," boosting tourism for Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey, said Jeff Tinsman, Delaware's artificial reef coordinator.

In the midst of an economic downturn, sinking naval vessels for artificial reefs aims to achieve multiple goals. It creates new ocean habitat and a tourist destination, while also ridding the Navy of outdated ships. Half of all U.S. coastal states have created artificial reefs or have plans to do so.

But some environmentalists, as well as federal and independent scientists, question whether the program provides ecological benefits.

"They're throwing debris down there and saying it's an economic opportunity, but they're not looking into the environmental impacts," said Colby Self, who is the green ship-recycling coordinator for the Basel Action Network and co-authored a recent report on the Navy's sinking program.

Only a few studies have examined the impact on the ocean of artificial reefs. The Army Corps of Engineers must approve the projects, and the Environmental Protection Agency inspects each vessel before it's sunk and can provide advice on where to place it. But state and federal officials are exploring issues such as whether traces of remaining toxic chemicals pose a hazard and whether the ships concentrate fish in areas where they're more likely to be caught.

The question of whether artificial reefs provide ecological benefits has "been out there for 50 years or more," said Tinsman, of Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. "If that was any easy question, it would have been answered long ago."

Some studies indicate that these human-made reefs may harm ocean species, even as they provide clear economic benefits.

"Adding more habitat is not the issue," said James A. Bohnsack, a research fishery biologist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. "You need to protect the fish populations."

Donald Schregardus, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for the environment, said in a phone interview that when it came to creating reefs, the Navy simply responded to states' requests.

"We let them decide what they want and if they have an interest in these ships," Schregardus said. "We are not the experts on whether they are increasing [fish] populations or whether they are the attraction for divers and fishermen. But we want to make sure they're safe."

"Our initial experience appears to be positive," Schregardus said. "We anticipate it remaining in our toolbox as an option." He said the Navy also disposes of old ships by donating them to museums or other federal agencies, selling them abroad or scrapping them.

No one questions that artificial reefs attract many aquatic species, including open ocean fish such as mackerel and amberjack and some sharks. Billy Causey, the Southeast regional director for the National Marine Sanctuary program, said researchers are trying to determine whether sunken vessels make a "salt lick and get the pelagics to stop off and partake of the food there."

Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware all sunk New York City subway cars off their coasts several years ago. Tinsman said the cars have lured species ranging from black sea bass to triggerfish.

"It's undeniable, there must be a reason it's attracting them," he said, noting that the number of annual fishing trips to one subway car site rose from 300 to 17,000. "That's the kind of impact something like that can have."

But some scientists worry that anglers may be catching and consuming fish that have absorbed contaminants leaching from decommissioned vessels. These ships have carcinogenic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), as well as oil, asbestos and other pollutants.

The EPA, which issued guidelines for ship sinking in 2006 along with the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration, requires that any ship destined to become an artificial reef not contain PCB levels above 50 parts per billion. But some fish can accumulate PCBs in their bodies over time as they consume smaller fish, causing their contaminant levels to rise above that threshold.

Jon Dodrill, environmental administrator for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's division of marine fisheries management, has been monitoring PCB levels in reef fish near the site of the USS Oriskany, a naval aircraft carrier that was sunk to create a reef in May 2006. State officials identified a spike in fish-tissue PCB contamination a year after the sinking.

Since then, the contamination levels have dropped below advisory levels, although the most recent round of test results found elevated PCB levels in two red porgy and two scamp grouper that were sampled. "We're interested to see if this downward trend continues or stabilizes at a lower level," Dodrill said, adding that the peak levels of contamination would be a problem only for people relying on these fish for their main source of food.

Maine sanctuary managers are hoping that the increase in divers and anglers near artificial reefs will ease human pressure on natural reefs. Sean Morton, superintendent of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, said that a sunken ship off Key Largo has diverted tourists from neighboring natural reefs but one off Key West has not.

"There's no need to get any more artificial reefs done at this point, until we know the impact of what we've already done," Causey said of the Florida Keys.

In the meantime, the $945,000 project to clean, reconfigure and sink the Radford is close to completion. Contractors have removed the wiring, ductwork and gaskets that could contain PCBs, and they continue to test for remaining traces of the chemicals. They have auctioned off the brass, bronze and other exotic alloys from fixtures and opened up vertical shafts and missile silos. EPA inspectors continue to do final checks on the project, and contractors are focused on cleaning some remaining engine rooms.

After towing the Radford to its designated site later this month or in early August, contractors will cut holes in the ship, which participated in the Persian Gulf War as well as the Navy's bombardment of Beirut in the early 1980s. Then the vessel, which went out of service March 18, 2003, will sink beneath the waves.

E-Waste bill gains broad support→

When it comes to electronics, gadget-loving Americans tend to take an "in with the new, out with the old" approach - with little regard for what happens to the old. But the fate of discarded computers, cellphones and TVs is precisely what's at the heart of a bill recently introduced on Capitol Hill.A bipartisan group of senators and House members wants to restrict U.S. manufacturers from dumping electronic waste overseas. And in a rare alignment of environmentalist and business interests, the effort is drawing significant industry support.

The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act - introduced last month by Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) - would bar e-waste from being exported to India, China, Nigeria and other nations.

Roughly 80 percent of e-waste in the U.S. winds up in the trash, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. But even the electronics that do make it to the recycling plant aren't necessarily getting disposed of properly.

Some facilities that claim to recycle e-waste ship the materials to developing countries, where the electronics are broken apart or burned by workers using unsafe methods.

"E-waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the United States, and it can pose a serious problem in that most e-waste contains toxic chemicals which present environmental and health concerns when not properly handled," Green said in a statement.

The push for a federal e-waste law is partly a response to a hodgepodge of state laws that vary widely in their approach. Some 25 states have laws that limit or prohibit the land disposal of toxic electronics materials.

The problem is that states can't control what happens to e-waste after it leaves their borders.

"There are a number of efforts to divert e-waste out of the trash and into the hands of recyclers, and states are really leading that charge - but what good is all the effort if it's just going to be dumped overseas?" said Barbara Kyle, national coordinator for the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

"States can't stop the exportation of waste to developing countries - that's up to the federal government," she added.

Several major electronics-makers have lined up behind the legislation, including Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Samsung and Dell. Some of the firms said they already have policies prohibiting the export of e-waste.

"As an industry leader in product life cycle improvements, HP does not allow the export of e-waste from developed countries to developing countries," said Ashley Watson, vice president and chief ethics and compliance officer at HP.

The industry's lobby group, the Consumer Electronics Association, has not taken a position on the bill. But generally, CEA favors industry-led solutions to the e-waste problem instead of new laws.

The group in April announced an initiative that aims to recycle 1 billion pounds of electronics annually by 2016 - three times the amount recycled in 2010.

"We want to move towards a national solution and away from the costly and confusing patchwork of state regulations," said Walter Alcorn, CEA's vice president of environmental affairs.

A number of the same manufacturers that support the congressional legislation, including HP, Samsung and Panasonic, have also declared support for CEA's initiative.

But critics say the industry plan falls short.

"It's great to set a goal, but they didn't provide any details," Kyle said. "It's important to understand that industry has a history of not doing much unless states require them to."

Some environmentalists, meanwhile, are worried that a federal law will emerge that's weaker than some of the state laws already in place.

So while federal legislation is necessary to restrict the export of e-waste to other countries, Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney Kate Sinding said that the time may not be right for a broad federal e-waste law.

"It would be a shame - more than a shame - to lose strong and robust state laws," Sinding said.

Only one group - the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries - has publicly opposed the bill. ISRI President Robin Wiener said the legislation could hurt U.S. businesses and weaken efforts to improve recycling operations overseas.

ISRI wants responsible recycling "whether it's done in Texas or Taizhou," Wiener said.

The limited opposition to the bill has supporters feeling cautiously optimistic about its chances.

"This is a bipartisan bill that's supported by an awful lot of groups that don't usually support the same things," Kyle said. "So we're hopeful."

E-Waste bill gains broad support→

When it comes to electronics, gadget-loving Americans tend to take an "in with the new, out with the old" approach - with little regard for what happens to the old. But the fate of discarded computers, cellphones and TVs is precisely what's at the heart of a bill recently introduced on Capitol Hill. A bipartisan group of senators and House members wants to restrict U.S. manufacturers from dumping electronic waste overseas. And in a rare alignment of environmentalist and business interests, the effort is drawing significant industry support.

The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act - introduced last month by Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) - would bar e-waste from being exported to India, China, Nigeria and other nations.

Roughly 80 percent of e-waste in the U.S. winds up in the trash, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. But even the electronics that do make it to the recycling plant aren't necessarily getting disposed of properly.

Some facilities that claim to recycle e-waste ship the materials to developing countries, where the electronics are broken apart or burned by workers using unsafe methods.

"E-waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the United States, and it can pose a serious problem in that most e-waste contains toxic chemicals which present environmental and health concerns when not properly handled," Green said in a statement.

The push for a federal e-waste law is partly a response to a hodgepodge of state laws that vary widely in their approach. Some 25 states have laws that limit or prohibit the land disposal of toxic electronics materials.

The problem is that states can't control what happens to e-waste after it leaves their borders.

"There are a number of efforts to divert e-waste out of the trash and into the hands of recyclers, and states are really leading that charge - but what good is all the effort if it's just going to be dumped overseas?" said Barbara Kyle, national coordinator for the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

"States can't stop the exportation of waste to developing countries - that's up to the federal government," she added.

Several major electronics-makers have lined up behind the legislation, including Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Samsung and Dell. Some of the firms said they already have policies prohibiting the export of e-waste.

"As an industry leader in product life cycle improvements, HP does not allow the export of e-waste from developed countries to developing countries," said Ashley Watson, vice president and chief ethics and compliance officer at HP.

The industry's lobby group, the Consumer Electronics Association, has not taken a position on the bill. But generally, CEA favors industry-led solutions to the e-waste problem instead of new laws.

The group in April announced an initiative that aims to recycle 1 billion pounds of electronics annually by 2016 - three times the amount recycled in 2010.

"We want to move towards a national solution and away from the costly and confusing patchwork of state regulations," said Walter Alcorn, CEA's vice president of environmental affairs.

A number of the same manufacturers that support the congressional legislation, including HP, Samsung and Panasonic, have also declared support for CEA's initiative.

But critics say the industry plan falls short.

"It's great to set a goal, but they didn't provide any details," Kyle said. "It's important to understand that industry has a history of not doing much unless states require them to."

Some environmentalists, meanwhile, are worried that a federal law will emerge that's weaker than some of the state laws already in place.

So while federal legislation is necessary to restrict the export of e-waste to other countries, Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney Kate Sinding said that the time may not be right for a broad federal e-waste law.

"It would be a shame - more than a shame - to lose strong and robust state laws," Sinding said.

Only one group - the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries - has publicly opposed the bill. ISRI President Robin Wiener said the legislation could hurt U.S. businesses and weaken efforts to improve recycling operations overseas.

ISRI wants responsible recycling "whether it's done in Texas or Taizhou," Wiener said.

The limited opposition to the bill has supporters feeling cautiously optimistic about its chances.

"This is a bipartisan bill that's supported by an awful lot of groups that don't usually support the same things," Kyle said. "So we're hopeful."

Sink Stink→

The U.S. Navy has more than tripled the number of ships it has sunk for target practice over the past decade, a move environmentalists claim is an end-run around stricter ship-breaking regulations that were passed to keep harmful toxins like PCBs out of the water. The Navy says sailors need these training exercises to learn how to fire real weapons and sink enemy warships, but opponents say the U.S. Navy Ship Sinking Exercise - or "SINKEX" - should be scrapped.

Colby Self, director of the Basal Action Networks' green ship recycling campaign, said the Navy had to find a cheaper way to dismantle old ships, so it escalated the sinking program. Basal and the Sierra Club plan to submit a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency today demanding that it revoke the Navy's SINKEX permit.

Polychlorinated biphenyls - PCBs - were once common in everything from paint to electric motors. Their toxicity, with links to everything from skin rashes to low birth weight and cancer, led them to be banned by Congress in 1979.

Old U.S. warships are filled with PCBs and other toxins, and now, so are U.S. waters, environmentalists say.

Following an outcry over lax environmental and worker safety regulations at ship-breaking yards in India, the Navy agreed in 1999 to only send its decommissioned ships to U.S. scrappers.

But that same year, the EPA issued the Navy a letter of agreement that allowed it to sink ships as long as it studied the environmental impacts, stayed a certain depth and distance from the coastline, removed most of the toxins, and estimated the amount of PCBs that remained on the ship.

Hawaii has become the most popular graveyard for decommissioned ships. Fifty-three ships weighing an estimated 286,000 tons and containing an estimated 501 pounds of PCBs have been sunk in the deep waters surrounding the islands from 2000 to 2010, according to the Navy.

Another 32 ships weighing an estimated 281,000 tons were sunk in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the Carolinas. Those ships contained an estimated 700 pounds of PCBs, the bulk of which were on the supercarrier USS America.

In May, the Navy won approval to start sinking two decommissioned ships each year into the Gulf of Alaska. The pristine waters are home to several endangered species and one of the nation's largest fisheries for Alaskan pollack, a white fish commonly used in frozen food, fast food and imitation crabmeat.

In all, the number of decommissioned ships used in sinking exercises leaped from 32 ships between 1990 and 1999 - the year tougher ship-scrapping regulations were passed - to 110 ships between 2000 and 2010, according to documents obtained by The Daily.

The Navy's annual reports estimated that most of its ships had little to no PCBs onboard when they were sunk. But experts interviewed by The Daily said that it would be impossible to remove all hazardous materials, which also include asbestos, chromates, mercury and other heavy metals, without completely tearing apart the ship.

"If you break it up, it's decontaminated down to the last nut and bolt. But if you don't break it up, there's no way you can completely decontaminate it," said Robert Berry, vice president of International Ship Breaking, which decontaminates and scraps ships for the Navy.

Thomas Dydek, a toxicology expert at Dydek Toxicology Consulting, also said a lot of toxins are inside a ship's hull. He said the harmful effect to humans depends on how quickly they get into the food chain.

"That would be the concern, that if it's disbursed into the water, then it could get into the food chain and eventually get into a fish that a person would eat," said Dydek.

Environmnetal groups petition EPA to end Navy ship dumping program→

An administrative petition to put a halt to the Navy's practice of sinking contaminated old vessels in the high seas as part of target practice exercises known as SINKEX was filed today by the Basel Action Network (BAN) and the Sierra Club. The petition, directed to U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, alleges that the decommissioned ships used by the Navy contain a host of toxic materials including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that pose serious threats to the marine environment when sunk. The legal action is timely as the Navy recently announced plans to extend the SINKEX program to the Gulf of Alaska, one of the richest fishing grounds in the world, including commercially important fisheries such as crab, cod, salmon and halibut.

The petition concludes that the current program not only violates U.S and international ocean dumping regulations, but in fact may contaminate waters to such an extent that fish found there will not be fit for human consumption.

"After more than a decade of unchecked dumping and sinking of old naval vessels, the Navy's SINKEX program has raised toxic PCB and contaminant levels in our marine environment, threatening our waters, food supply, local fishing industries and human health," said Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. "The Sierra Club is joining the Basel Action Network in this important effort to clean up our oceans and promote safe recycling of ships. We hope the Navy will lead by example - as they have with their adoption of hybrid ships - by putting a halt to this arcane dumping practice."

The Navy's SINKEX program allows the Navy to fire on inactive naval warships to practicegunnery and torpedo accuracy while also disposing of unwanted ships at sea. The program has operated under a series of general permits and exemptions from existing environmental laws, namely the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), which implements the London Convention into U.S. law and regulates ocean dumping, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which regulates the transport and disposal of PCBs. The EPA and Navy admit that PCBs, a suspected carcinogen that has been targeted for global phase out and destruction under the Stockholm Convention, are deposited into the marine environment as a result of SINKEX operations. Recent data from the scuttled aircraft carrier Oriskany reveal that PCBs were leached into surrounding waters at far greater rates than anticipated, resulting in human health threats to those consuming fish from the Florida dump site.

In the petition, BAN and Sierra Club request the EPA Administrator to reevaluate the SINKEX program given the current body of scientific knowledge on PCB leaching and uptake through the marine food chain.

Computer simulation and use of large balloons and clean barges are demonstrated and viable alternative methods to sinking actual ships for the purposes of naval training. According to BAN and Sierra Club, by using such alternatives, the government will lead by example and will uphold President Obama's Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance by promoting recycling, and by doing so, will create thousands of 'green jobs' here in the U.S. Recycling recirculates critical metals resources into the marketplace, and reduces reliance on the dangerous and damaging primary metals mining.

"While the EPA and Navy both acknowledge new science on PCBs, they have failed to reevaluate the unimpeded ocean dumping privileges extended to the Navy more than a decade ago," said Colby Self, BAN's Green Ship Recycling Campaign Director. "They have also failed to recognize today's ethic of recycling rather than dumping. It's time we take a more rational approach."

E-Recycler Intercon Accused of China Shipments, Takes Legal Action→

Intercon Solutions, an e-waste handler, took legal action yesterday after a certification program accused the company of shipping hazardous waste to China. Watchdog group the Basel Action Network announced on Tuesday that the Chicago Heights, Ill., electronics recycler would be the first company denied BAN's e-Stewards certification, which aims to recognize e-waste recyclers that operate responsibly.

BAN said its decision was based on "compelling evidence" that Intercon had been exporting hazardous electronic waste to China, in violation of the UN's Basel Convention. The non-profit said that two freight containers containing such waste were shipped from Intercon premises to Los Angeles and then to Hong Kong.

"Intercon Solutions has boasted to customers for a long time in brochures and on its website that it does not export any used electronics entrusted to it for recycling," BAN said in a press release. "However on two separate occasions BAN investigators photographed and tracked containers of electronic waste leaving property leased by Intercon Solutions in Chicago Heights on its way to China.

"BAN had alerted Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department. As the same for any other cases, given the shipment contained hazardous waste, they subsequently required that the shipment be returned to the US," BAN adds.

But Intercon said the containers did not belong to the company. On Wednesday the firm filed a petition for presuit discovery with the circuit court of Cook County, Ill., to force BAN to provide more information about the allegations.

"Petitioner [Intercon] did not deposit the containers on the premises, and petitioner has no record of them being on the premises," the filing states. "The containers did not belong to petitioner. Petitioner did not load them. Petitioner did not ship anything in [the] containers. nor cause them to be transported by trucking company, rail nor by ocean freight."

Intercon says that one or more persons must have trespassed on its premises to deposit the containers, then load them with hazardous waste for shipment. By forcing BAN to provide relevant documents, such as export declarations, bills of lading, waybills, express bills, packing lists or invoices, Intercon says it could discover the identity of the trespassers.

An attorney for the company, Cathy Pilkington, told Environmental Leader, "Intercon Solutiosn respects the mission of BAN, but strongly disagrees that the evidence justifies the conclusion that BAN has reached."

BAN's press release and evidentiary report caused another agency, R-2, to immediately de-list Intercon, according to the company, which says it has also suffered reputational damage with its suppliers and customers.