Dear Governor Gregoire,

The Basel Action Network (BAN) is a Seattle-based watchdog group working globally to prevent the trade in toxic wastes from developed to developing countries. We are writing now to express grave concern over the proposed final rules for Washington’s new electronic waste law. If finalized as drafted, these rules will allow Washington’s toxic electronic materials to go anywhere, unaccounted for, after the first tier recycler or ‘direct processor’.

We are fully cognizant of the lack of state jurisdiction over export matters; however, we believe there are other avenues (see below) for establishing accountability for toxic electronic waste generated in Washington. We are requesting that your office immediately direct the state attorney general and Department of Ecology to do everything possible to ensure our progressive e-waste bill does not lead to a devastating exodus of our state's toxic electronic waste to those who can least deal with it.

As you probably know, the ‘extended producer responsibility’ e-waste bill you signed into law in March 2006 was groundbreaking in this country, by virtue of holding manufacturers responsible for taking back their toxic products. That is as it should be. If, however, we do not hold the manufacturers accountable for tracking the mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. throughout final disposition, it is highly probable (according to Ecology's own assessment) that our waste products will end up in China, Vietnam, India or Pakistan, in violation of their laws and the principle of environmental justice. There they are likely to be "managed" in the horrific conditions that BAN has documented.

So far we have heard from the Department of Ecology that ‘we can’t do this, and we can’t do that’ but we are sure that with creativity, innovation and strength of will we can avert this unforeseen immoral and untoward outcome, and that is the purpose of this letter. We know that you are not interested in creating a Washington program on your watch that protects Washington citizens at the expense of others and will do all you can to prevent this from occurring. We believe the solution is two-fold, as follows:

1. Problem: The current draft rules, about to be finalized this month, have no requirements for processing Washington’s toxic waste beyond the direct processor, based on perceived legal constraints. This means the entire waste stream can be turned over to brokers (or anyone) after the first vendor, and exported anywhere for the most environmentally unsound practices as documented in our reports.
   
   Solution: We believe that, as the ‘plans or authorized parties’ have a presence in Washington State, unlike their processors and downstream vendors, the State can hold these entities (manufacturers) directly responsible for proper management of Washington’s toxic e-waste rather than their processors. The most progressive manufacturers are already doing this in their own takeback programs, and are concerned that our standards do not require all manufacturers to meet this same level of accountability for tracking toxic materials throughout final disposition.
   
   An additional benefit to this approach is that Ecology will have far better export figures to report back to the legislature in 2010, as mandated in the statute.
   
   
2. Problem: The proposed final rules rightly call for not violating laws in importing and transit countries, which, if implemented, could have a significant impact on diverting Washington’s toxic materials away from developing countries. The problem is that Ecology has not gone far enough in requiring verifiable documentation and direct Ecology oversight of this key requirement in the rules.
   
   Solution: Revise the proposed rules to require plans and authorized parties to provide Ecology with verifiable documentation (in the form of consent from importing ‘competent authorities’ and import permits) proving that their exports are not violating laws in importing and transit countries.
   
   
3. Problem: There appears to be a massive loophole that will allow ‘registered collectors’ to divert much of the equipment outside of the program, by claiming it for re-use, and therefore outside of any standards. And unscrupulous ‘registered collectors’ who send Washington’s electronics back into the reuse market will be able to load up containers of collected equipment that is really scrap mislabeled as equipment going for “reuse”.
   
   Solution: Add standards to the final rule for ‘registered collectors’, which will require that all material collected from the public as a ‘registered collector’ must stay within the program, and that they must test all electronics and ensure they are working before sent for ‘reuse’.

Time is short. We believe Ecology plans to file the final rule on September 26th. We encourage you to take action now to push the AG’s office as far as Washington can possibly go in stopping our toxic e-waste from a free flow after the direct processor releases it to anyone.

Sincerely,