RMC News Feed

Lead From Old U.S. Batteries Sent to Mexico Raises Risks

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:23:53 GMT

Lead From Old U.S. Batteries Sent to Mexico Raises Risks By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: December 8, 2011 NAUCALPAN DE JUÁREZ, Mexico — The spent batteries Americans turn in for recycling are increasingly being sent to Mexico, where their lead is often extracted by crude methods that are illegal in the United States, exposing plant workers and local residents to dangerous levels of a toxic metal. The rising flow of batteries is a result of strict new Environmental Protection Agency standards on lead pollution, which make domestic recycling more difficult and expensive, but do not prohibit companies from exporting the work and the danger to countries where standards are low and enforcement is lax. Mexican environmental officials acknowledge that they lack the money, manpower and technical capacity to police a fast-growing industry now operating in many parts of the country, often in dilapidated neighborhoods like the one here, 30 miles northwest of Mexico City. Batteries are imported through official channels or smuggled in to satisfy a growing demand for lead, once cheap and readily available but now in short global supply. Lead batteries are crucial to cellphone networks, solar power arrays and the exploding Chinese car market, and the demand for lead has increased as much as tenfold in a decade. An analysis of trade statistics by The New York Times shows that about 20 percent of spent American vehicle and industrial batteries are now exported to Mexico, up from 6 percent in 2007. About 20 million such batteries will cross the border this year, according to United States trade statistics, and that does not take into account batteries smuggled in as mislabeled metal scrap or second-hand goods. In September, more than 60 18-wheelers full of old batteries crossed the border each day, trade records show. Spent batteries house up to 40 pounds of lead, which can cause high blood pressure, kidney damage and abdominal pain in adults, and serious developmental delays and behavioral problems in young children because it interferes with neurological development. When batteries are broken for recycling, the lead is released as dust and, during melting, as lead-laced emissions. Lead battery recyclers in the United States now operate in sealed, highly mechanized plants — like labs working with dangerous germs. Their smokestacks are fitted with scrubbers, and their perimeters are surrounded by lead-monitoring devices. But for much of the past decade, at the vast recycling compound of Industrial Mondelo here, batteries have been dismantled by men wielding hammers, and their lead melted in furnaces whose smokestacks vent to the air outside, where lead particles can settle everywhere from schoolyards to food carts. Officials of the plant, which has been given more than a dozen citations and fines for lead emissions and improper storage of dangerous materials, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The recycling factory has put a neighborhood of children at serious risk of lead exposure, said Marisa Jacott, director of Fronteras Comunes, an environmental group in Mexico City. Ms. Jacott wants to test young residents living near the plant but lacks the money to do so. The town’s elementary school is on the same block as the recycling plant, which recently moved the bulk of its operations to a larger facility elsewhere. Lead pollution remains in the ground for decades. A sample of soil collected by The Times in the schoolyard showed a lead level of 2,000 parts per million, five times the limit for children’s play areas in the United States set by the Environmental Protection Agency. In most states, that would rate as a “significant environmental lead hazard” and require immediate remediation, like covering the area with concrete or disposing of the soil. “If we export, we should only be sending batteries to countries with standards as strict as ours, and in Mexico that is not the case,” said Perry Gottesfeld, executive director of Occupational Knowledge International, a San Francisco group devoted to reducing lead exposure. One Border, 2 Standards While Mexico does have some regulation for smelting and recycling lead, the laws are poorly enforced and even licensed plants are allowed to release about 20 times as much lead as their American equivalents, said Mr. Gottesfeld, who has studied the export trade. Some American companies recycling in Mexico say that they already exceed that country’s requirements and that they intend to bring their Mexican plants up to American standards. But there is no way to ensure that will happen. The E.P.A. says it “does not inspect, monitor or verify the Mexican facilities.” Which is why doctors and teachers in Mexico are demanding testing in a country that has little or none. At her community clinic on the outskirts of Guadalajara, Dr. Lourdes Pérez Ramírez said that she routinely saw children with seriously delayed development and that she was convinced that lead poisoning from a nearby recycling plant might play a role, although she cannot prove it, because studies have not been done. “I think there is danger from the lead,” she said, “but to find it you have to look. You have to look!” Although lead batteries have long been classified as hazardous waste, the E.P.A. only last year began requiring that American companies report their exports — but already, even that minimal system is not achieving the agency’s goal of safer recycling. Exporters must estimate how many batteries they intend to transfer out of the country in the coming year and specify the recipient plant. That paperwork is sent to Semarnat, the Mexican counterpart to the E.P.A., which is responsible for accepting or rejecting the shipments. In 2010, Semarnat never refused. Then each March, American companies are supposed to tally how many batteries were actually sent, but this year only 3 out of 10 exporters complied. The E.P.A. declined to speak publicly on the export trade, instead explaining in a statement that its role was “limited to processing” the paperwork for the new battery tracking system. Many people familiar with the industry said more needed to be done. “We’re shipping hazardous waste to a neighbor ill equipped to process it and we’re doing it legally, turning our heads, and pretending it’s not a problem,” said Robert Finn, chief executive of RSR, a Dallas-based lead recycler that operates solely in the United States, and is concerned about the loss of raw materials to Mexico. Sergio Herrera, deputy director for industrial inspection at the Mexican legal agency that oversees environmental compliance, known as Profepa, said regulating the battery trade was an “important priority,” but early efforts to control it have mostly exposed the daunting size of the task. A recent government survey found that 19 of 20 recycling plants did not have proper authorization for importing dangerous waste, including batteries. And a retrospective review of truck manifests turned up 142 illegal shipments containing millions of spent car batteries that had not been detected at the border. Acumuladores de Jalisco, the recycling plant near Dr. Pérez Ramírez’s clinic, operates without the proper authorization to recycle imports and when it was last inspected in 2006, was found to lack storage for even “one fifth of the hazardous waste it generates.” Yet there is no record of any fine, or follow-up, which Mr. Herrera called “a deficiency on our part in not verifying our procedures.” The recycler did not respond to repeated interview requests. Along the border, where American vigilance focuses on drugs and illegal immigrants, there is little effort to stanch the flow, with the Customs and Border Protection agency dealing “mostly...

The War on Waste

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:45:48 GMT

The War on Waste By Don Campbell & Thana Dharmarajah Bob Beacock ignores the overpowering stench. He walks into a pile of sticky, torn garbage bags dumped on top of one of Ontario’s heaping landfills. Dozens of gulls snap up morsels of trash as Beacock unearths an umbrella, electrical wires, a plastic canola oil container and a 20-litre plastic pail. He scoops up a battery with his shovel. “There’s a real no-no,” says the Brock Township landfill operator. “I don’t know how many times we tell the public. There’s one thing I hate seeing in a landfill is any battery.” These items could have been diverted through one of Ontario’s provincewide waste diversion programs. But they ended up here, as they do at other municipal garbage sites, including Hamilton’s Glanbrook Landfill. Programs like the blue box may have lulled Ontarians into believing they’re doing all they can to help the environment and reduce waste. But Trash Troubles — a Metroland Special Report — shows we aren’t being as diligent as we think. Provincewide, 55 per cent of garbage that could be recycled ends up in landfills instead. As a result, landfills are filling up fast and we are on the brink of a waste disposal crisis, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario says. “Our garbage continues to outstrip available landfill space,” said AMO’s president Gary McNamara. “We must either reduce our waste and recycle more waste, or accept new landfills or incinerators in our communities.” Governments established ambitious waste diversion targets during the last decade, but today, more than half the five million tonnes of waste picked up at Ontario curbsides annually gets dumped instead of recycled or reused. That 2.7 million tonnes of waste, which could have been diverted, is equivalent to the weight of 6,222 Boeing 747 jets. For example, three-quarters of plastics that should be recycled end up in landfills. And even though organics make up about one-third of the province’s waste, only 40 per cent of Ontarians have access to a curbside green bin program. In Hamilton, “we’re perhaps not in a crisis,” says Pat Parker, director of support services for waste management, but there is definite pressure. The city is well short of its 65-per-cent waste-diversion goal set for 2011, a target now under review. While there are about 25 years of life left at the Glanbrook Landfill, where Hamilton’s residential garbage goes, Hamiltonians diverted only 49 per cent of their waste in 2010, up from the 45 per cent reported in 2009, but still shy of the goal. “If we don’t increase our diversion, if we stay at what we’re at now, that could be a problem,” Parker said. Hamilton sent 110,000 tonnes to landfill in 2010 — equivalent to about 4.8 million garbage bags. To get to the 65 per cent diversion rate goal, the equivalent of 1.6 million bags a year has to be taken out of the landfill stream and recycled or composted instead, Parker said. The city still has options at Glanbrook, including increasing capacity through new design or equipment, and “will continue to do whatever we can to maximize its life.” “But at some point, something will need to be done,” she said. The city is in the midst of a review of its solid waste management plan. It will be looking for public input in about a month, Parker said, as it examines options on how to stay on top of garbage in the future. Across Ontario, more than $320 million was spent on waste diversion last year, through programs funded by industry, municipalities and the province. Consumers also pay through eco fees on certain products. The results of these programs are poor. Not a single community surveyed for Trash Troubles, this Metroland Special Report, has hit its waste-diversion goal. Ontario towns and cities have made barely a dent in the truckloads of plastic bottles, pop cans, magazines, milk cartons and other household garbage that still end up in dumps. A 2010 report by Ontario’s Auditor General ranked the province sixth in Canada by waste-diversion rate, behind Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, British Columbia and Quebec and well behind most European countries. “There’s a good portion of the population who are very devout, who take a lot of time and sort,” Beacock said at the Brock Township site, northeast of Toronto. “The rest of them do nothing. It’s just all wham bam in a bag and out to the curb.” The same items Beacock is pulling out of the Brock dump are cramming municipal landfills across Ontario, contributing to the crisis that worries AMO. Brock Township will run out of space in two years. Landfills in at least six other municipalities, including Simcoe County, Northumberland and Muskoka, will fill up within 10 years. Brock is fortunate: a new incinerator to replace all Durham Region’s landfills should be open in 2014. In the meantime, garbage is diverted from full landfills in the rest of the region to a private landfill in upstate New York. Other communities are scouring for solutions. Those with landfills already closed, including Guelph and Peel, are trucking garbage to other cities in Ontario. Even green bin waste is a problem. York is sending some of its organics to Massachusetts because its Ontario contractor cannot handle the region’s full volume. Many Ontarians may believe that Toronto’s decision to stop sending the city’s residential waste to Michigan at the end of 2010 signalled the end of Ontario garbage exports. But the practice continues. Guelph had been sending organics to an incinerator in Niagara Falls, N.Y., since 2006 but finally opened a new composting facility in September. “As long as you have got this escape valve (sending it south), no one is going to take this issue seriously,” said Municipal Waste Association spokesperson Ben Bennett. The Auditor-General says waste diversion rates are lagging because: • Municipalities with enough landfill space are unlikely to reduce curbside pickups and impose garbage bag limits. • Municipalities have to compete with each other and the private sector to sell their recyclable and compostable materials. • Municipalities say the nearly $80 million provided by industry for their share of the $160-million-a-year blue box program is not enough. • They also say it is 40 per cent cheaper to landfill materials that could be recycled. Even the types of materials collected in residential blue bin programs differ by municipality. While one may accept aluminum foil, trays and take-out containers, another may only take one of these materials or refuse it all. “You go to cottage country and it’s different,” said Trevor Barton, Peel Region’s waste management planning supervisor. “You go to your neighbouring municipality and it’s different. It’s very frustrating for residents.” Diversion programs There are five major residential diversion programs in Ontario: • Blue Box Waste (paper, plastic bottles, aluminum cans) • Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste (paints, oil filters, dry-cell batteries) • Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (computers, televisions, cellphones) • Used Tires (cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, trailers) • Bottle Deposit Return program (wine, spirit and beer bottles) Article from Hamilton Spectator http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/611431--the-war-on-waste

More than 60 per cent

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:37:38 GMT

More than 60 per cent of Canadians improperly dispose of their used batteries, according to Raw Materials Company survey Canada NewsWire TORONTO, Oct. 26, 2011 Almost 90 per cent of Canadians are aware of negative environmental effects of sending batteries to landfill, according to Angus Reid survey; Only 28 per cent currently utilize local battery recycling programs TORONTO, Oct. 26, 2011 /CNW/ - Despite widespread awareness of the negative environmental effects of sending batteries to landfill, only 37 per cent of Canadians properly dispose of their used batteries, according to a Raw Materials Company survey, released today. While 87 per cent of respondents reported awareness of the detrimental effects improperly disposed batteries have on the environment, a mere 28 per cent currently utilize recycling programs, with an additional 11 per cent reporting to a hazardous waste centre. The effects of improper battery disposal are severe - 1 mg of mercury is enough to make all the fish in a 20 acre lake inedible for a full year. With almost 11 mg of mercury in the average button cell, alkaline battery1, Canadians' awareness of the implications of improper disposal is in stark contrast to the realities of the situation. "With such dire health and environmental consequences resulting from batteries that aren't recycled, driving a change in Canadians' behavior is crucial for our country's long-term wellbeing," says James Ewles, President of Raw Materials Company. "It's quite surprising to see such a contrast between awareness and behaviour, which is why we aim to increase responsible recycling by making it more accessible to consumers throughout the country." The Angus Reid poll shows that Canadians' behaviours surrounding battery recycling is largely motivated by a lack of awareness. With thousands of battery recycling depots across the country, 76 per cent of survey respondents indicated that they were not aware of any programs in local stores. Furthermore, 74 per cent indicated a lack of drop boxes in their local community, with 81 per cent willing to change their behaviours with greater access to recycling programs. In recent months, Ontario has increased accessibility to battery recycling as Canada's first jurisdiction to offer incentives for battery recycling and recovery under the provincial Municipal Household Hazardous and Special Waste (MHSW) program. As a result, Ontario has seen an expansion in local collections over the course of the spring and summer. The challenge is to now build on the success of the incentive program to increase public awareness while continuing to expand the collection network across Ontario. "As we work to reduce our environmental footprint in other areas, it's important to consider the implications of all our interactions with the environment," adds Ewles. "As we continue to take steps to prevent harmful discharge of toxins, it's crucial that as Canadians, we commit to making battery recycling a top priority." In addition to environmental awareness, Canadians are also aware that battery recycling has not yet gained prominence. 75 per cent of respondents believe that less than 20 per cent of batteries are recycled in Canada. Surprisingly, past reports from Environment Canada estimate this number to be much lower, with 5 only per cent single-use, disposable of batteries in Canada properly disposed of in 2007. When properly recycled, the materials inside a battery can be used to replace raw materials in the manufacture of a wide variety of products. While casings are often used to create new batteries, other uses include metal recovery for use in the manufacture of automobiles. Reclaimed stainless steel is used in the manufacture of wide variety of products. Internal battery components such as manganese and zinc can be processed for reuse as nutrients in agricultural fertilizer. Respondents indicated a heightened awareness of issues such as harmful substances leaking into the soil (98 per cent) and contamination of water and soil (93 per cent), while issues such as human ingestion/inhalation of harmful materials (67 per cent) and increased generation of landfill gas, leading to global climate change (70 per cent) were less recognized. Unlike many industry players, RMC recycles up to 87 % of the contents of an alkaline battery. The materials are recovered through higher order recycling to produce new products and commodities, and are not converted to slag or road aggregate, with zero waste sent to landfill. The recovered commodities from the batteries are all reused within a five hundred mile radius of our recycling facility, with the majority consumed locally, limiting greenhouse gas emissions. About Raw Materials Company Raw Materials Company (RMC) is an international waste and resource recycling organization. Established in 1985, RMC quickly rose to become an international leader in waste and resource recycling. With programs serving both the residential and commercial/industrial sector, RMC offers convenient and reliable solutions for responsible recycling, and has diverted over 200 million pounds of waste from landfills. In addition to battery recycling programs through retail, municipal and industrial partners, RMC also offers a full suite of responsible waste management services, ranging from electronic waste recycling to mercury, lamp and bulb recycling to metal recovery programs. For more information, please visit www.rawmaterials.com 1 Based on analytical analysis of various spent dry cell batteries collected in Ontario Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/466991#ixzz1bvGghPPx

Techno-trash poses dire threat to human health

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:37:28 GMT

Techno-trash poses dire threat to human health Natalie O'Brien October 2, 2011 UNDER the cover of darkness, thousands of used computers, electronic goods and televisions are being secretly dumped all over the state and much of the so-called 'e-waste' is ending up as toxic landfill. The burial of millions of items over the past decade is threatening to poison the environment, says Professor Ravi Naidu, the managing director of the Co-operative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment. Professor Naidu, who has been studying the legacy of e-waste, has warned that the toxic chemicals and heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, mercury and zinc found in old computers, monitors, televisions and other electronic goods are seeping into the ground and threatening groundwater supplies. In the past decade about 84 per cent of e-waste was dumped in landfill sites, many of which were not lined to prevent leaching, Professor Naidu said. 'No fewer than 234 million electronic waste items were sent to landfill in 2009,' he said. 'As many of our landfills are not actually designed to accommodate e-waste, we run a high level of risk if contaminated water escapes from them.' He said there was a risk of transfer to humans if people were using contaminated groundwater for irrigation of food crops and long-term exposure could have a serious effect on human health. A study last year for the Department of the Environment, a review of the application of landfill standards, reveals that contamination of groundwater near some landfill sites is inevitable, and in some cases the pollution of groundwater has already occurred. Bureau of Statistics figures reveal Australians are the highest users of new technology in the world. An ABS study has found that 'waste from obsolete electronic goods or e-waste is one of the fastest-growing waste types'. In 2007-08, 31.7 million new televisions, computers and computer products were sold in Australia. In the same year, 16.8 million were thrown away and 88 per cent ended up in landfill. But, even when e-waste is being sent for recycling, the relatively high cost has spawned a black market in which it is shipped overseas illegally and dumped in developing countries, polluting their environments. The problem of disposing of e-waste and the high cost of recycling has sparked another problem with old televisions and computers being dumped secretly on the doorsteps of charities, says the National Association of Charitable Recycling Organisations. A recent association report said charities were reporting increases of up to 300 per cent of e-waste donations they cannot use. There is little demand for resale, and the cost of recycling is prohibitive for charities, which end up having to bear the cost. Old television sets cannot be given away. The report found that the public also viewed charities as an easy option for waste management and much of the e-waste was dumped at night or at weekends. The federal government has released draft regulations for a proposed program of national recycling that aims to have 80 per cent of TVs, computers and computer parts recycled by 2021-22. Article from The Sydney Morning Herald www.smh.com.au/ Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/technotrash-poses-dire-threat-to-human-health-20111001-1l2rr.html#ixzz1buiCdNP8

Stewardship Ontario Battery Recycling Program

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:52:22 GMT

Stewardship Ontario Battery Recycling Program Raw Materials Company Inc. (RMC) is excited to be participating in Stewardship Ontario’s new Battery Incentive Program, which launched this past February. This no cost program has provided the structure for independent service providers to set-up public facing battery collections. RMC is proud to be Ontario’s approved processor for batteries collected under Stewardship Ontario’s MHSW program. Currently it is estimated that only 7% of the batteries purchased in Ontario are being collected and recycled. We feel the new program is an effective and efficient way to help recycle more spent batteries in Ontario. RMC’s chief mandate is to help protect our environment and preserve our natural resources by diverting hazardous materials from our landfills. The goal of Stewardship Ontario’s new program is to increase collection points across Ontario, thus making it more convenient for Ontarians to recycle their batteries at local businesses during their daily routines. Together with the help of concerned citizens, we feel the goal of a healthier, safer and greener environment is more attainable than ever, simply by recycling spent household batteries and other hazardous household products. If you are interested in setting up a no cost public facing battery collection program within your facility please contact us for program details and qualifications.