CORPORATE STRATEGIES FOR
ELECTRONICS RECYCLING:
A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS

A publication of
the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and
the Computer TakeBack Campaign!
by
Sheila Davis Project Director,
SVTC Clean Computer Campaign
and
Ted Smith,
SVTC Executive Director
June 25, 2003

CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

II. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
B. Report Structure

5
6

III OVERVIEW
A. Health Impacts of Hazardous Waste
B. Hazardous Materials in E-Waste and their
Effects on Humans and the Environment
C. Methodology
1. Overview of Electronic Disassembly, Recycling,
and Processing and Workers Health and Safety Protections
1.A. Disassembly Process
1.B. Development of Efficient Materials
Processing Systems
1.C. Worker and Environmental Protections

11

IV. SVTC TOUR OF RECYCLING FACILITIES
A. Visit to HP - Micro Metallics
1. HP - Micro Metallics Recycling Warehousing System
2. HP - Micro Metallics Disassembly Process
3. HP - Micro Metallics Materials Processing System
4. HP - Micro Metallics Worker Protections
4.A. Health and Safety Program
4.B. Worker-initiated Protections

13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14

B. Visit to United States Penitentiary
Atwater UNICOR Recycling Facility
1. UNICOR Warehousing System
2. UNICOR Disassembly System
3. UNICOR Materials Processing System
4. UNICOR Worker Protections
4.A. Health and Safety Program
4.B. Worker-initiated Protections

14
15
15
15
16
16
17

V. CONCLUSION

17

VI. ENDNOTES

19

8
9
9
10
10
11

Appendix A: Letter to Barbara Materna, Acting Chief, Occupational Health Branch, CA Dept. of Health
Services
Appendix B: Letter from Barbar Materna to Steve Skurna, President of Micro Metallics
Appendix C: Report: Occupational Health Branch Walk Through of Micro Metallics

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The problem of electronic waste (e-waste) is growing at an unsustainable rate. E-waste is now the fastest
growing, and most toxic, component of municipal garbage. Local governments are facing huge costs to
handle e-waste, and even greater costs if they do not capture this toxic stream and handle it in an appropriate
manner.
Recycling is both a means of preventing the land disposal of toxic metals in e-waste and recovering some
value. The Computer TakeBack Campaign, an advocacy coalition, is developing and campaigning for
appropriate models for managing e-waste. (For more information about the campaign, its goals and work
see http://www.computertakeback.com).
This case study compares two very different models for recycling obsolete computers and electronics hardware that have been created by the two largest computer makers in the U.S. — Hewlett Packard’s partnership with Micro Metallics of Roseville, California, and Dell Computers’ (recently renamed Dell, Inc.) partnership with UNICOR, the Federal Prison Industry.
Our methodology included visits to both sites to examine the facilities for a number of characteristics:
•

Transparency and accountability to the public
Handling large amounts of e-waste poses risks of toxic contamination to workers and surrounding communities if conducted carelessly. Thus, the most basic criterion that employees
and citizens should rightfully expect from any recycling operation is that it be open to public
inspection.

•

General compliance with occupational health and safety standards
Observance of health and safety standards in the workplace is important for protecting
workers from exposure to toxics. It is also a powerful indicator of broader compliance with
environmental requirements. Well-trained workers, who are fully protected by the law to
seek advice and take action to protect their health and the environment without fear of
reprisal from their employer, are the most effective environmental protection. Operations
that expose workers to hazards also frequently fail to protect communities around their
facilities from dangerous emissions. Seldom does an industrial facility with a well-managed
occupational health and safety program, and workers who are fully empowered to initiate
corrective actions, violate environmental standards.

•

Use of best recycling practices and their potential for wide adoption by the private sector
Electronic waste is a fairly new category of resource recovery. As the nation responds to
this growing challenge to waste management systems and the environment, we must quickly
develop the infrastructure required to handle huge volumes of e-waste. How do we build
this new segment of our economy so that it is thriving, sustainable and independent of the
public treasury?

This study found that the two facilities differed dramatically in their transparency to the
public. The Atwater facility exhibited a “fortress UNICOR” mentality, allowing
only restricted access to investigators. UNICOR failed to respond to repeated
requests to allow an industrial hygienist trained in occupational health and safety to inspect its facility, approving the visit too late for its findings to be included here. During a
visit by other inspectors for this study, both investigators and inmates were forbidden
from speaking with each other. Fortunately, the investigators were able to supplement
their observations with testimonials from inmates, which are presented anonymously in
this report to protect prisoners from reprisal. The Atwater facility refused to provide air
quality test results, claiming that this information would have to be sought through a
Freedom of Information Act request addressed to the federal Bureau of Prisons.

“Even when I
wear the paper
mask, I blow
out black mu- In contrast, the Micro Metallics - Hewlett-Packard facility allowed our industrial
cus from my hygienist to inspect freely, permitted investigators to speak informally with employnose everyday.” ees, and provided air monitoring and employee blood –lead test results.
---an inmate at
Atwater

The strikingly
dissimilar picture at the two
operations offers a contrast
between some
of the worst and
best recycling
practices.

Safety and health standards were very different at the two recycling operations. At
Atwater, UNICOR’s primitive practice of manually smashing leaded glass in
cathode ray tubes unnecessarily exposed workers to risk of toxic contamination and cuts. Security restrictions on the kinds of tools available to prisoners made
their work less efficient and more dangerous. Workstations were not designed to avoid
ergonomic hazards. One inmate reported that “Even when I wear the paper mask, I
blow out black mucus from my nose everyday. The black particles in my nose and
throat look as if I am a heavy smoker. Cuts and abrasions happen all the time. Of these
the open wounds are exposed to the dirt and dust and many do not heal as quickly as
normal wounds.” Inmates reported that those who sought to improve conditions faced
discipline and loss of their jobs.
At Micro Metallics – HP, hazardous tools such as hammers were eliminated in
favor of mechanized systems, such as crushers, that reduce worker exposure to
toxics. The facility’s workstations were designed to reduce ergonomic hazards. An
intranet database allowed workers to access information on hazardous materials and
optimal methods for safe disassembly.
The strikingly dissimilar picture at the two operations offers a contrast between some of
the worst and best recycling practices. UNICOR’s operation is organized primarily to
maintain a maximum-security facility, rather than to maximize the efficiency with which
e-waste is sorted and disassembled. Its prison warehouse is organizationally and technologically backward. Cheap labor, paid .20 to $1.26 per hour at Atwater, offers little
incentive to invest in worker productivity. In addition, prison workers have few rights
and little ability to improve health and safety conditions. Inmates toil outside the protection of state and local environmental and labor regulations that private sector recyclers
must follow. Prison laborers are not considered employees and are not protected against
retaliatory acts by their employer (UNICOR) under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Inmates are not allowed to unionize or to serve on the prison health and safety committees.

In contrast, Micro Metallics – HP had developed efficient warehousing systems that
electronically track materials throughout the recycling process. The facility was staffed
UNICOR, a by union workers paid a living wage. Non-management employees sat on the company’s
publicly subsi- health and safety committee. They helped create a workplace that was open to public
inquiry and able to respond to state and local regulatory agencies.

dized prison industrial operator, used practices disturbingly similar to
those found in
developing nations.

UNICOR, a publicly subsidized prison industrial operator, used practices disturbingly
similar to those found in developing nations, which were exposed in the 2002 report,
Exporting Harm http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/technotrash.htm. Inspectors
found harsh conditions, very few worker rights and protections that are guaranteed to
hazardous waste recycling workers in the US, and lack of disclosure of its practices to
the public. The Micro Metallics – HP facility, a private sector operation, had much
higher levels of demonstrable health and safety and environmental safeguards. In addition, while Hewlett-Packard has committed to a policy of not exporting hazardous ewaste to developing countries, UNICOR has acknowledged that e-waste processed in
their facilities is likely exported overseas to foreign countries for final disposition.
Because of the lack of transparency surrounding the UNICOR facility, its inefficient and
unnecessarily dangerous recycling practices, and the undetermined taxpayer subsidy
that underpins its operation, planners and policy makers will be able to learn much from
their operations about how not to set up a sound e-waste recycling program. The Micro
Metallics facility, while not yet offering comprehensive solutions, offers a far better model
for further study and imitation.

These recycling operations suggest two paths for the future of e-waste recyE-waste recy- cling in America. One path leads toward efficient, transparent, modern facilities staffed
cling can con- by free labor, possessed of their rights as contemporary employees, able to protect
tribute to com- themselves and nearby communities from harm. The other path descends into a closed,
Dickensian world of prisoners condemned to dangerous work for little pay under backmunity eco- ward conditions. Depending on the path we choose, e-waste recycling can contribute
nomic develop- to community economic development and environmental protection, or can become the
ment and envi- equivalent of breaking rocks on a high-tech chain gang.

ronmental protection, or can
become
the
equivalent of
breaking rocks
on a high-tech
chain gang

II. INTRODUCTION
A. Background

ute to the local economy without taxpayer subsidy,
and which do not create health or environmental problems.

Consumer electronics, especially computers and televisions, contain more than 700 different types of materials, most of which are hazardous.1 (See Section
B: Hazardous Materials in E-Waste and their Effects
on Humans and the Environment.) Computer monitors, televisions and several consumer electronic devices (CED) are banned from landfills in California
and Massachusetts, and more than one-half of the
states in the U.S. have introduced legislation to adThe problem of electronic waste (e-waste) is growing dress hazardous e-waste. Although consumer elecat an unsustainable rate. E-waste is now the fastest tronics contain some valuable metals, chips, and parts,
growing, and most toxic, component of municipal gar- these constituent materials are difficult and time-conbage. Local governments are facing huge costs to suming to recover due to poor product design. Since
handle e-waste, and even greater costs if they do not these poorly designed products require cheap labor
capture this toxic stream and handle it in an appropri- to perform manual disassembly most waste is currently
shipped overseas to Asian countries or sent to US
ate manner.
prisons for “recycling.”
Recycling is both a means of preventing the land
disposal of toxic metals in e-wastes and recover- An earlier investigation by two of CTBC’s member
ing some value. The Computer TakeBack Cam- organizations, the Basel Action Network (BAN) and
paign, an advocacy coalition, seeks appropriate models Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), documented
what happens to computers and electronic devices
for managing e-waste.
dismantled in China. BAN investigators documented
The purpose of this case study is to examine two dif- women and children using crude tools, dangerous
ferent models for end-of-life disposition employed by chemicals, and open pit fires to recover precious metthe two largest US computer manufacturers who mar- als, copper, and chips.
ket “recycling” of e-waste to their customers. SVTC
visited the recycling facilities of Micro Metallics, The widely distributed report, Exporting Harm:
Hewlett Packard’s recycling partner, located in The High-Tech Trashing of Asia, significantly
Roseville California and the United States Penitentiary increased awareness among recyclers, and many
in Atwater, Dell Inc’s recycling partner, to compare have publicly pledged to stop shipping waste overthe recycling systems of the two largest US computer seas.2 Ending this export to developing countries,
makers.
lacking both worker and environmental protections and
a transparent and democratic infrastructure for overThus this initial CTBC report focuses on Atwater sight and enforcement requires an ongoing, consistent,
Prison and Micro Metallics health and safety issues and economically stable network of recyclers in the
relating to worker rights, the recycling disassembly US. Many companies in the U.S. – including Hewlett
processes, and materials processing mechanism. From Packard and Dell — have responded to this report
this comparison, we intended to learn what character- by pledging that they will not export e-waste to develistics waste managers and policy decision makers might oping countries. Dell spokesperson Cathy Hargett
emulate as they began to develop their own programs. told The Oregonian newspaper in an article that apOf special concern is the need for ongoing programs peared on April 18, 2002: “Dell has a no-landfill, nothat are economically sound and stable, that contrib- export policy. All of our recyclers have to meet that.”
The Computer TakeBack Campaign (CTBC) was
formed to promote clean design and brand owner responsibility for discarded computers and electronics.
The principle of producer take-back shifts the burden
for collection and recycling costs off of taxpayers and
government to the producers, providing an incentive
for companies to market products that are durable,
less-toxic, and recyclable.

Section III outlines the method of inquiry used by
SVTC during our visits to the two recycling facilities.
This section also provides an overview of the disassembly and materials processing and how these activities correlate with health and safety issues. In genA spokesman for UNICOR confirmed that UNICOR eral, we use this test as a proxy for environmental comdoes in fact sell the waste to companies which more pliance as well. An industrial facility with a well-managed occupational health and safety program will usuthan likely export it.
ally also have high environmental standards. On the
“It’s absolutely possible the stuff ends up other hand, operations that routinely expose workers
to hazards frequently have poor pollution control/prein other countries,” he said. “But we don’t vention measures at their facilities. Well-trained workreally see the problem with that.” 3
ers, who are fully protected by the law to seek advice
and take action to protect their health and the environment without fear of reprisal from their employer,
Environmental health and safety issues in the electronic are the mot effective environmental protection. Workrecycling industry are clearly broad and complex. This ers are like the “canaries in the coal mine” and can be
is an initial investigation that examines two differ- the early warning system when they become ill from
ent models of partnerships structured by computer exposure to hazardous materials.
companies for end- of-life management of their
products. These evaluations of the strategies em- When we can observe impacts or threats
ployed by HP and Dell Inc will form the basis for
to their health and safety, we should exfuture research and action by the CTBC.
Dell’s use of UNICOR raises doubts about this claim,
however. UNICOR’s “lack of transparency” means
the e-waste could be sold to other companies, which
then export the waste. UNICOR will not disclose who
buys the material.

pect to find more extensive environmental
Electronics recycling is at a critical juncture in its de- impacts as well.
velopment. OEMs are in a position to make a choice
of investing in the development of prototype factories
and financing R &D projects that will develop equipment and systems that protect human health and the
environment and build economic benefits in the US.
Alternatively, they can continue to seek cheap labor
and lax worker and environmental practices, through
the practice of sending hazardous e-waste to Asian
villages or to U.S. prisons. How this choice is made
by multi-billion dollar U.S. computer companies – the
high road vs. the low road — will determine to a significant degree the future of computer recycling in the
United States.
B. Report Structure
This document outlines the findings of the SVTC staff
visits to the two recycling facilities. The report emphasizes issues relating to workers rights, recycling disassembly processes, materials processing mechanism and
is organized in the following way:

Section IV provides an overview of SVTC observations during the tour of both facilities. Because SVTC
staff was not afforded the opportunity to speak with
prisoners, this preliminary document supplements what
we saw at the prison facility with letters written to
SVTC by inmates from US Penitentiary Atwater.

III. OVERVIEW
A.

Health impacts of Hazardous Electronic Waste

Electronic recycling is an emerging industry with limited technology, systems or standards. Although consumer
electronics contain some valuable metals, chips, and parts, these constituent materials are difficult and timeconsuming to recover due to poor product design. Currently these poorly designed products require cheap
labor to perform manual disassembly. The UNICOR recycling program’s goal is to put as many prisoners to
work as possible, resulting in the use of manual labor rather than mechanization.
The impacts of the recycling and dismantling operations on worker health, generally has not been well-studied,
and thus the impacts of specific operations on worker health remain poorly understood. What is known is that
the potential for seriously adverse effects is a cause for great concern. These concerns were unfortunately
confirmed in the Chinese villages where workers suffer chronic illness such as skin rashes and respiratory
problems and where the residents cannot drink the water because of acute contamination.
Workers in electronics demanufacturing and cathode ray tube recycling (CRT) operations are exposed to a
variety of heavy metals during processing, such as lead and cadmium. In addition, they are exposed to
brominated flame retardants from handled and shredded plastics, and undergo ergonomic strains and stress
from manual lifting and operating hand equipment and long term hearing loss related to the operation of heavy
equipment. 4
Research reveals that people working at an electronics dismantling plant showed significantly higher levels of all
brominated flame retardants in their blood serum as compared to a control group.5 In addition, a recent study
of occupational health risk associated with electronic demanufacturing showed higher levels of lead and cadmium at workstations that manually break CRTs found inside computer monitors and televisions, as is performed in prison, than workstations that mechanically cut CRT glass.6
Computer monitors and televisions contain lead, cadmium, mercury switches, polyvinyl chloride, brominated
flame-retardants, phosphates, beryllium and a host of other hazardous materials and are banned from landfills
in California, Minnesota and Massachusetts. More than one-half of the states throughout the U.S. have introduced legislation regarding end-of-life management of hazardous electronic equipment.
B.

Hazardous Materials in E-Waste and their Effects on Humans and the Environment

Lead 7
Lead is known to cause damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems, blood system and
kidneys in humans. Effects on the endocrine system have also been observed and its serious negative effects
on children’s brain development have been well documented. Lead accumulates in the environment and has
high acute and chronic toxic effects on plants, animals and microorganisms8 . Consumer electronics constitute
40% of lead found in landfills.

Cadmium 9
Cadmium compounds are classified as toxic with a possible risk of irreversible effects on human health.
Cadmium and cadmium compounds accumulate in the human body, in particular in kidneys. Cadmium is
adsorbed through respiration but is also taken up with food. Cadmium shows a danger of cumulative effects in
the environment due to its acute and chronic toxicity10 .
Mercury 11
When inorganic mercury spreads out in the water, it is transformed to methylated mercury in the bottom
sediments. Methylated mercury easily accumulates in living organisms and concentrates through the food chain
particularly via fish. Methylated mercury causes chronic damage to the brain.
It is estimated that 22 % of the yearly world consumption of mercury is used in electrical and electronic
equipment. It is basically used in thermostats, (position) sensors, relays and switches (e.g. on printed circuit
boards and in measuring equipment) and discharge lamps, batteries, switches/housing, medical equipment.
Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium VI)12
Some manufacturers still apply this substance as corrosion protection of untreated and galvanized steel plates
and as a decorative and hardener for steel housing.Chromium VI can easily pass through membranes of cells
and is easily absorbed producing various toxic effects within the cells. It causes strong allergic reactions
even in small concentrations. Asthmatic bronchitis is another allergic reaction linked to chromium VI. Chromium VI may also cause DNA damage.
Brominated Flame Retardants
Brominated flame-retardants are a class of brominated chemicals commonly used in electronic products as a
means for reducing flammability. Various scientific observations indicate that Polybrominated Diphenylethers
(PBDE) might act as endocrine disrupters. Researchers in the US found exposure to Polybrominated
Biphenyls (PBBs) may cause an increased risk of cancer of the digestive and lymph systems.

C.

Methodology

Electronics recycling is at a critical juncture in its development. OEMs are in a position to make a choice of
investing in the development of prototype factories and financing R &D projects that will develop equipment
and systems that protect human health and the environment and build economic benefits in the US. Alternatively, they can continue to seek cheap labor and lax worker and environmental practices, through the practice
of sending hazardous e-waste to Asian villages or to U.S. prisons. How this choice is made by multi-billion
dollar U.S. computer companies – the high road vs. the low road — will determine to a significant degree the
future of computer recycling in the United States.
During SVTC visits we focused on the following:
-

Disassembly process
Development of efficient materials processing systems
Worker protections

SVTC selected the Micro Metallics facility located in Roseville California and the US Penitentiary in Atwater
because they represent approaches to end-of-life management taken by the two largest US computer makers.
Dell Computers, with $31.1 billion revenue in 2002,13 has a partnership with UNICOR, the not-for-profit
business branch of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. UNICOR earned $116.8 million in electronics recycling
sales in 2001 and employed 3,269 inmates at its 13 electronic recycling factories.14 The total number of
UNICOR electronic recycling facilities in 2003 has been consolidated to six facilities, according to UNICOR
officials.
Hewlett Packard, which reported $72.3 billion revenue in 2002,15 entered into a joint venture with Micro
Metallics in 1996 to recycle materials recovered internally and to recover parts from products returned by
customers. The Roseville facility has since expanded to process some computers returned through the HP
customer Product Return & Recycling Program. A similar facility has been built in Tennessee. When the $5
million Roseville recycling plant opened, it helped to set a US benchmark for other OEMs for their extended
producer recovery programs.
OEMs, such as Dell and HP, recycle thousands of tons of computers and peripherals annually, and thus already
have incredible influence over how the recycling infrastructure evolves in local communities. In the future,
OEMs, by their contracting decisions, will largely control how and under what circumstances their materials
are recycled.
The goal of this initial inquiry is to examine health and safety issues relating to workers rights, the recycling
disassembly processes, and materials processing mechanism.
(Subsequent CTBC reports will compare the economic impact of prison labor against the private sector to
examine local community development benefits).
1. Overview of Electronic Disassembly, Recycling Processing and Workers Health and Safety Protections
1A.

Disassembly Process

According to experts, disassembly is the first and most important point in the recycling process, and it will be
a key component of the recycling industry’s rate of expansion. Disassembly requires the removal of plastic
housing and the recovery of toxic components and often entails the recovery of metals, chips, and parts for
reuse. While engineered for efficient assembly-line production, electronic products generally have not been
designed for efficient disassembly-line dismantling. Products received by recycling facilities are not uniform and
represent diverse product brand names, models, and years.
Currently, disassembly for recycling, if performed at all, relies heavily on manual labor. But with the enormous
increase in products to be recycled and therefore to be disassembled, it will increasingly be necessary to
automate some aspects of disassembly. High flexibility and low-cost of disassembly process are becoming
more necessary. The automation potential will be one of the most important productivity factors for this new
production process and becomes a new challenge for engineers as well as product designers. According to
industry experts, the two main goals of disassembly should be the following:
•
•

Reduce the cost of disassembly for optimizing the recycling process
Create a humane working environment in disassembly factories16

Although some OEMs have invested in facilities to test or demonstrate disassembly systems, there is very little
feedback from recyclers to OEMs on the disassembly process, compared to the type of communication that
exist between a company such as Dell or HP and the contractors who assemble their products for delivery to
market. In order to create a sustainable and profitable recycling system that doesn’t require OEMs to rely
solely on finding the cheapest labor pools and laxest environmental standards, OEMs will have to invest in
systems, tools, technology and equipment that reduces worker exposure to toxics, increases the speed in
which products are disassembled, and the speed and safety which toxic components such as mercury switches
and batteries are removed and constituent materials processed.
During our visits to the US Penitentiary in Atwater and the Micro Metallics facilities, the SVTC investigators
observed the tools that disassemblers used and the design of the workstations.
1.B.

Development of efficient materials processing systems

The constituent metals, glass, and plastics found in electronics are generally low value. The glass cathode ray
tubes (CRT) found in televisions and computer monitors contain lead in order to protect the user from
radiation from the cathode “rays”. Because the lead is so hazardous, CRT glass must be smelted or sent to
a glass-to-glass recycler that can recycle it into new products. Glass-to-glass recycling refers to the closed
loop recycling process of reclaiming leaded CRT glass from end-of-life CRTs and using it to make new CRT
glass. Glass-to-glass recycling involves collecting televisions and monitors, removing and crushing the CRTs,
separating the glass from the non-glass materials, processing the glass to meet specifications, and using the
glass as an ingredient to manufacture new CRT glass.

According to the Electronics Industry Alliance,
“There is no available technology that provides an effective and
economical method for CRT glass manufacturers to determine the
composition of recycled glass. Therefore, due to the potential risk
of adding recycled glass with the wrong composition, CRT glass
manufacturers have limited capacity to increase the use of recycled
glass in lieu of raw materials to manufacture new CRT glass.”17
Because CRT manufacturers have not developed technology that makes glass separation economically feasible, recyclers often cut their costs by using cheap labor in developing regions of the world
such as the Guangdong Province of China (as documented in “Exporting Harm”), Pakistan, India, and
Thailand or— as in one of the cases studied in this report— the US prison system. The other alternative is to
reduce the human handling of the CRTs by purchasing a shredder that mechanically grinds and separates
constituent materials. However, the output streams from the shredders are a relatively low value mix of plastic,
glass, and metals that cannot be used in a glass-to-glass process. Although just about every household in the
US has a television and/or a computer monitor bearing a CRT, OEMs and their contractors have not yet
invested in developing systems that combine the necessary manual or automated disassembly with mechanical
shredding processes.
1C.

Worker and Environmental Protections

Workers who process hazardous waste should have unencumbered freedom and access to information and
advice about hazardous materials and should have full protections under the law. Hazardous waste workers

should also have the ability to take action to protect their health and the environment without fear of reprisal.
For the purpose of this report, SVTC primarily focused on environmental health and safety issues related to
worker protections.
In general, we use this test as a proxy for environmental compliance as well. Well-trained workers, who are
fully protected by the law to seek advice and take action to protect their health and the environment without
fear of reprisal from their employer, are the mot effective environmental protection. Rarely does an industrial
facility with a well-managed occupational health and safety program also violate environmental standards,
while operations exposing workers to hazards frequently find it difficult to stop their hazardous emissions from
exiting their facilities. Well-trained, well-protected workers have always been the first and most effective
environmental protection. They serve as our “canaries in the coal mine.”

When worker health and safety is compromised, experience teaches us
that we should also expect environmental problems. When workers
cannot speak about the hazards they observe, either because of the lack
of basic training or because of the lack of workplace rights and protection –
and the related fear of reprisals — the public is likely to discover
extensive problems only after a disaster or scandal.
Prisons are self-contained communities designed to isolate inmates from social life. They deny inmates of some
of the most basic rights and privileges of the law. Federal prisons are also not effectively regulated by many
local state and federal environmental and labor laws.
These are not ideal circumstances to process hazardous waste. Concerns about workers health and safety
protections and the transparency of the prison system were heightened when the federal prison officials
denied our request that we bring an occupational health expert with us. We had formally requested to
prison officials that Dr. Barbara Materna, Acting Chief of the Occupational Health Branch of the California
Department of Health Services (DHS) be allowed to join us on our tour. In spite of our many requests, Dr.
Materna was not allowed to accompany SVTC staff on the tour of the Atwater Prison Facility, nor were we
provided opportunity to speak with any of the prisoners during our visit. On the other hand, HP - Micro
Metallics welcomed Dr. Materna to its Roseville facility and treated her visit rather routinely. Due to the
inaccessibility of interviews with the prisoners, this preliminary report supplements what we observed at the
prison with what inmates described in their letters.18
The Occupational Health Branch of DHS is a non-regulatory public health program, which conducts research
and public education about occupational disease and injury among California workers. Dr. Materna, an expert
in occupational lead poisoning prevention, expressed interest in assisting SVTC to learn more about the electronic recycling industry and worker health and safety issues. Electronics recycling is a relatively new industry
and the potential environmental health impacts due to chemical exposures are relatively unknown and undocumented. Materna and the Occupational Health Branch of DHS need to be among the specialists providing
leadership in research on the persistent bio-accumulative toxins released through the electronics recycling
process.
As a standard procedure, Dr. Materna initially visits a facility, observes and discusses health and safety measures with management and staff, and makes recommendations. Dr. Materna was able to talk with HP-Micro
Metallics’ staff and to make an initial report (See Appendix A).

IV. SVTC TOUR OF RECYCLING FACILITIES

A. Visit to Micro Metallics 19
1.

HP - Micro Metallics Recycling Warehousing System

The Micro Metallics recycling facility was built in 1996 to recover and reuse HP’s products and to test
recycling methods. The factory is designed to recover usable parts, move the materials through the warehouse
as efficiently and with as little labor as possible.
Each pallet of electronic waste is labeled with a source customer code (SCC) upon entering the facility. The
SCC, which resembles a bar code, also provides information to the workers about the hazardous materials
contained in the electronic waste and if there are any valuable parts to salvage. The SCC also allows HP Micro Metallics employees to electronically track the materials throughout the warehouse and to eventually
inform HP and other clients of how the recycled materials were processed, if there is any value in the material,
and who are the down-stream vendors of the recycled materials.
2.

HP - Micro Metallics Disassembly Process

The Micro Metallics disassembly workstations are well-lit, ergonomically designed, and computerized. Each
workbench is equipped with a hand-held device to scan the SCC and retrieve information about the equipment
to be salvaged. If a worker is unfamiliar with a piece of equipment they can log onto the HP - Micro Metallics
computer intranet and conduct a search for information about the equipment design or find-out if the equipment
contains any hazardous components. Other features of the workstation include tabletops that can be raised or
lowered from 24" to 48" to avoid back injury and several of the tables are equipped with hydraulic lifts for
dismantling heavier items. The workers sit on 5-wheel chairs that can be raised and lowered to a height
comfortable to the worker. Motorized pallet jackets and forklifts are also used to avoid worker injury. Tools
are assigned for specific tasks and air driven tools are used to reduce the use of hand operations. Screwdrivers
are used as a last resort. Workers are encouraged to provide feedback on product design and to suggest
alternative tools to improve safety and efficiency. For example, hammers were determined to be too dangerous
and banned from the disassemblers’ tool kit. All brooms have also been removed from the facility and replaced
with vacuum cleaners in order to keep the dust under control. Sweeping is thought to stir up fine dust particles
that could contain lead, brominated flame retardants, and other toxins from the computer dismantling and
shredding operations.
3.

Micro Metallics Materials Processing System

Micro Metallics workers send non-reusable computers through their mechanical shredder, which grinds and
separates materials using eddy currents, magnets and screens. The resulting output stream is sent to Noranda’s
smelter in Quebec, Canada, or sold to recyclers approved by Micro Metallics and its clients. HP also contracts with private sector recyclers, which they say they audit. HP does not use prison labor in any of its
operations.

4.

Micro Metallics Worker Protections

4.A. Health and Safety Program
Dr. Materna participated in a walkthrough of the HP-Micro Metallics facility in response to a request from
SVTC to provide industrial hygiene expertise as part of an overall effort to better understand the potential
worker health and safety risks associated with computer/electronics recycling. Dr Materna provided a brief
report of the process, potential health and safety hazards, and health and safety program based on her direct
observations during the walkthrough, informal discussion with employees, conversations with several Micro
Metallics personnel, including Mr. John Quinn, EH&S Manager and a follow-up discussion and follow-up
phone call with the Chief Shop Steward.
Dr. Materna expressed concerns were in the area of ergonomics, which she considered to be one of the more
significant potential hazards at the HP-Micro Metallics facility. As a follow-up Dr Materna suggested airdriven tools be suspended from above the workstation in order to decrease ergonomic stress and Dr. Materna
felt that these concerns were being addressed.
Air monitoring data and blood-lead test of the Micro Metallics workers were provided to Dr. Materna by
Micro Metallics, per the request of SVTC. (See Dr. Materna Report in Appendix A.)
4.B. Worker-Initiated Protections
The workers are members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union, earn
from $8-$13 per hour and receive full health benefits. All Federal, state, and local rules and regulations apply
to the Micro Metallics facility. Workers who report occupational and environmental hazards are thus protected by Federal whistleblower laws as well as by union contract provisions.
B. Visit to United States Penitentiary in Atwater UNICOR Recycling Facility20
1.

UNICOR Warehousing System

Arriving e-waste is first searched when it arrives at the “camp” warehouse facility located on the outer perimeter of the main prison. The e-waste will be searched 3-4 more times as it goes through the recycling process
at the prison facility.
The approximately 40 inmates who work in the camp are considered low risk and recycle a broad range of
materials including typewriters and Department of Defense equipment. The computer monitors and televisions
are restacked and sent behind the “fence” to the main facility. Once inside the main facility the materials are
unpacked and searched again before they are distributed to higher risk inmates for dismantling. The hazardous
e-waste is disassembled and separated into plastic housing, metals and CRT and other constituent materials by
approximately 275 inmates. The materials are unpacked, searched and re-packed at least 2-3 more times
before leaving the prison facility. The number of times the materials are packed and unpacked for security
purposes would be considered extremely counter-productive to most warehouse operations, which attempt to
reduce labor costs by reducing the number of times the materials are handled by workers. Furthermore, the
extra handling steps add to potentially harmful exposure. In comparison to the tracking and warehousing
system observed at HP-Micro Metallics, the US Penitentiary at Atwater system is thus highly inefficient,
necessitates more exposure time to the hazardous components of e-waste, and increases risks.

2.

UNICOR Disassembly System

Security is the primary concern of the prison. The US Penitentiary at Atwater recycling operation is organized
around the principal goal of maintaining a maximum-security facility, rather than maximizing the efficiency with
which e-waste is disassembled. The 240 prisoners who work dismantling televisions, computers, and other
electronic equipment sit in an assortment of plastic and common folding chairs at long makeshift tables. The
workstations are not ergonomically designed to reduce work related injuries.
The tools used for disassembly in the prison are selected largely on whether or not the tools pose a security
risk. Consequently, inmates often have to use tools that aren’t suitable to the tasks and that can cause injury.
Larry Novicky, who heads up the UNICOR recycling services division, stated in a letter to SVTC that “the use
of hammers in a recycling operation is a basic industry fact that is standard for many various activities21 .”
However, as noted previously, HP-Micro Metallics has banned hammers from their operation due to concerns
about the dangers of shattered glass and plastic shards. Security restrictions on the types of tools that can be
given to inmates sometimes require inmates to resort to using a hammer as their primary tool for disassembly.22
An inmate explained in a letter to SVTC how he and others are often cut by glass shards from CRTs due to the
lack of appropriate drill bits and other tools.
“…the sinkholes in the television or monitor plastic housing are frequently deeper than
the length of the drill bit. Thus we are give (sic) woefully inadequate-sized bits to get at
the deeper screws. To get around this problem, inmates must hit the case with the hammer
in the general area of where the screw holds the case to the inner screw stanchions or
misuse the air gun to drill the plastic away from the screw stanchion to free the case. The
orderlies/janitors sweep the tabletops and floors which also stirs-up additional dirt and
dust for all to breath.
Even when I wear the paper mask, I blow out black mucus from my nose everyday. The
black particles in my nose and throat look as if I am a heavy smoker. Cuts and abrasions
happen all the time. Of these the open wounds are exposed to the dirt and dust and many
do not heal as quickly as normal wounds.”23

3.

UNICOR Materials Processing System

Another example of the misuse of hammers is in the prison CRT crushing room. The CRT is the glass tube
found inside television and computer monitors. CRTs contain leaded and barium impregnated glass and the
phosphor compounds inside the tubes can be easily inhaled without due care. SVTC staff expected to see a
closed-system mechanical crushing machine housed inside a secured room. To our surprise, the crushing
consisted of 8-12 inmates in a caged area blocked with strips of plastic sheeting, smashing CRTs with a
hammer. The inmates wore haz-mat suits, respirators, and the room was equipped with a filtration system. We
requested monitoring test results of the workplace air because of our concern that unnecessary and dangerous
levels of phosphor and glass dust and possibly lead and barium compounds could be present. Recent studies
of demanufacturing work areas show a migration of lead into non-work areas, including break rooms and
washrooms. The concentration of lead may be minimal, but its accumulation over time in areas where there is
a greater risk of exposure through ingestion is a concern.24 However, requests made by SVTC, for air moni-

toring test results have been denied by UNICOR25 . SVTC was told we would have to seek the information
from the Bureau of Prisons, not through normal public information processes, but under provisions of the
federal Freedom of Information Act.26 Micro Metallics, however, freely provided air monitoring test results as
well as worker blood test results to DHS researchers.
Smashing CRTs with hammers is not a common practice in the private sector, nor could it ever be considered
a “best practice.”

A recent study of occupational health risk associated with electronic demanufacturing
showed higher levels of lead and cadmium at workstations that manually break CRT
glass than workstations that mechanically cut CRT glass.27 The crude method of
crushing and separating the glass is considered too dangerous and costly by most
private sector recyclers.
The CRT glass is of extremely low value, and most private sector recyclers could not afford to employ 8-12
workers to don hazardous material suits and use hammers to manually crush CRTs for 8 hours a day. In fact,
many recyclers throughout California are seeking capital investments to install self-contained mechanical crushers
similar to the one used by HP-Micro Metallics. UNICOR’s practice of using hammers to smash leaded CRT
glass more closely resembles the labor-intensive CRT processing observed by BAN in Guangdong Province,
China than regulated private sector operations in the US.

4.

UNICOR Worker Right and Health and Safety

4A.

Health and Safety Program

Dr. Materna was not allowed to participate in a walkthrough of the US Penitentiary at Atwater facility. Thus
SVTC and the general public were not able to benefit from Dr Materna’s observations, or recommendations for the purpose of this report (See Appendix B). Unlike the tour of Micro Metallics in which Dr
Materna and SVTC were allowed to informally speak with employees, SVTC was forbidden to speak with
prisoners while on the tour and, and the inspection group was not provided an opportunity to speak with
prison workers in a formal interview.
Prisoners are not allowed to unionize and therefore do not have a shop steward in which to follow-up.
Prisoners are not allowed a representative on the Prison Health and Safety Committee to represent their
views or advocate their concerns. As mentioned above, requests made by SVTC, for air monitoring test
results have been denied by UNICOR. SVTC was told to seek the information from the Bureau of Prisons,
not through normal public information processes, but under provisions of the federal Freedom of Information Act.

4B.

Worker-Initiated Protections

Many of the federal, state and local environmental and labor regulations that private sector recyclers must
follow don’t apply to the federal prison system. For example, the Whistle Blower Protection Action of 1989
does not apply to inmates.28 The Act is designed to protect the so-called “whistleblower,” an employee who
believes that he or she has been discriminated against from retaliatory or discriminatory action by their employers subsequent to informing regulatory enforcers about abuses and unsafe practices. However, inmates are not
considered employees and are not protected against retaliatory acts by their employer (UNICOR) under the
Fair Labor Standard Act.29 Inmates at UNICOR’s Atwater Prison recycling factory earn $0.20 to $1.26 per
hour and are not allowed to form a union.
Several prisoners incarcerated at Atwater who work in the electronic recycling factory have written to SVTC
expressing concern about health and safety conditions and seeking information about the hazardous materials
contained in the computers. Inmates write that disciplinary action is taken against those who report violations,
try to bring about changes in safety procedures, make recommendations for better tools or request more
training. Inmates also said that they were warned not to speak with SVTC when we toured the facility or they
would “suffer disciplinary action or loss of job.”30
Although Atwater Prison has a health and safety committee that oversees all of the facility’s activities, unlike the
HP-Micro Metallics committee, it does not have a health and safety committee that specifically oversees the
electronics recycling operations. Nor are inmates (non-management) personnel represented on the health and
safety committee as they are at the HP-Micro Metallics facility. Therefore the concerns of the 275 inmates are
not adequately represented on the health and safety committee. Instead, inmates are required to submit written
complaints to their supervisor. The supervisor is required to respond to the he complaint within 72 hours.
However, prisoners claim that health and safety complaints to the supervisors are often met with reprisal from
the supervisor.31
IV. CONCLUSION_______________________________________________________
This case study compares two very different models for recycling obsolescent computers and electronics
hardware that have been created by the two largest computer makers in the U.S. — Hewlett Packard’s
partnership with Micro Metallics of Roseville, California, and Dell Computer (recently renamed Dell, Inc.)
partnership with UNICOR, the Federal Prison Industry.
Our methodology included visits to both sites to examine the facilities for general compliance with worker
protections and occupational health and safety standards and use of best recycling practices. We found that of
the two systems, HP –Micro Metallics partnership provided the best model for worker health and safety
protection. The HP-Micro Metallics facility demonstrated characteristics that other electronic waste managers
and policy decision makers might emulate as they begin to develop recycling programs. Alternatively, the Dell,
Inc.’s choice of the US prison system lacks a commitment to invest in a socially and economically sustainable
infrastructure. The prison system’s lack of both worker and environmental protections and transparent and
democratic infrastructure for oversight and enforcement more closely resembles the labor-intensive CRT processing observed by BAN in Guangdong Province, China than regulated private sector operations in the US.
In her report to HP-Micro Metallics, Dr. Materna wrote that “It was a good experience to visit a work site
where there appears to be a significant investment in occupational and environmental health and safety, and
also mechanisms that encourage the involvement of employees in addressing health and safety issues.”

Although SVTC have not observed all of the facilities in which HP equipment is recycled, the facility in
Roseville California, is an industry model that sets standards for factory prototype, worker health and safety
and provides examples for efficient recycling systems.
The HP-Micro Metallics system sets the following standards:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Eliminate tools, such as hammers, that cause injury and health hazards
Hire union workers and pay a living wage
Develop efficient warehousing systems that electronically track materials through recycling process
Install mechanized systems, such as crushers, that reduce worker exposure to toxics
Develop work stations designed to reduce ergonomic hazards
Develop intranet database that allows workers to access information on hazardous materials and
best methods for disassembly to avoid exposure
Provide non-management representation on the company’s health and safety committee
Developed transparent health and safety programs that welcome public inquiry and capable of responding to state and local regulatory agencies

Alternatively, Dell Inc’s partner, the UNICOR prison program, provides a poor example of worker health
and safety protections and perpetuates inefficient recycling systems in the US.
Our comparison could not be completed, due to the Atwater Prison facility refusal to allow the DHS occupational health and safety expert to participate in the tour with the SVTC and their repeated denial of her
requests to review the operation and make recommendations. After four months of correspondence, the
UNICOR facility has recently reversed its position and has now agreed to allow Dr. Materna entry into the
facility in the future. However, at the date this report was published, Dr. Materna still had not been allowed
into the facility. Nor had SVTC received environmental and human health monitoring data requested from
UNICOR.
Thus, we found that Dell’s prison partner lacked transparency, serves as a poor model and that its
workers are not fully protected by the law to seek advice and take action to protect their health and the
environment without fear of reprisal from their “employer”.
• Inmates are not considered employees and are not protected against retaliatory acts by their employer (UNICOR) under the Fair Labor Standard Act
• Inmates earn 20 cents to 1.26 per hour
• Inmates are not allowed to unionize
• Inmates are not allowed representation on the health and safety committees
• Prison warehousing system is inefficient and extremely counter-productive to most warehouse operations
• UNICOR’s primitive practice of manually smashing leaded CRT glass unnecessarily exposes workers to toxics as well as potential injuries
• UNICOR workstations are not designed to avoid ergonomic hazards
• State and local environmental and labor regulations that private sector recyclers must follow frequently don’t apply to the federal prison system
• Security restrictions on the types of tools that can be given to inmates leads to inefficient use of tools
as well as worker injuries
• UNICOR’s recycling operation is organized around the principal goal of maintaining a maximumsecurity facility, rather than maximizing the efficiency with which e-waste is disassembled

ENDNOTES
1

Electronics Roadmap, 1994 Electronics Industry Environmental Road Map
More than 22 recyclers have signed the Recycler’s Pledge of Stewardship developed by the Computer TakeBack
Campaign.
3
Dell Computers’ recycling efforts raise labor concerns, Erika McDonald, CEC Environmental Exchange, June 2003.
http://www.cechouston.org/newsletter/2003/nl_06_03/dell.html
4
Occupational Risks Associated with Electronics Demanufacturing and CRT Glass Processing Operations and the
Impact of Mitigation Activities of Employee Safety and Health, Neil Peters-Michaud, John Katers, Jim Barry, IEEE
International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 2003
5
Environmental Health Perspectives 107:643-648 (1999). [Online 29 June 1999] http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/
107p643-648sjodin/abstract.html
6
Occupational Risks Associated with Electronic Demanufacturing and CRT Glass Processing Operations and the
Impact of Mitigation Activities on Employee Safety and Health, Neil Peters-Michaud, John Katers, et al, IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 2003
7
Explanatory Memorandum, WEEE (Third Draft) July 1999, Brussels, 05.07.1999.
8
Compare Risk Reduction Monograph No. 1 Lead – Background and national experience with reducing risk, OECD Paris,
1993.
9
Explanatory Memorandum, WEEE (Third Draft) July 1999, Brussels, 05.07.1999.
10
This information is based on the risk reduction monograph no 5, CADMIUM, Background and national experience with
reducing risk (OEDC/GD894) 97; Health effects of cadmium exposure – a review of the literature and a risk estimate (Lars
Jarup and others) Scand J Work Environ Health 98; Environmental impacts of cadmium, Gerrit H. Vonkeman 1995; Cadmium in Sweden-environmental risks, Helena Parkman and others 1997 and other research on this issue.
11
Explanatory Memorandum, WEEE (Third Draft) July 1999, Brussels, 05.07.1999.
12
Explanatory Memorandum, WEEE (Third Draft) July 1999, Brussels, 05.07.1999.
13
http://www.dell.com/downloads/us/corporate/sec/ARFY02.pdf
14
UNICOR 2001 Annual Report
15
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/annual/2002/2002text.pdf
16
Automated Disassembly of Electronic Equipment, R Knoth, M. Brandostotter, B Kipacek, IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 2002
17
Cathode Ray Tube Manufacturing and Recycling: Analysis of Industry Survey, Electronic Industry Alliance, Spring
2001
18
To protect the privacy of the USP Atwater inmates who corresponded with SVTC, authors of letters will be cited as John
Doe followed by a letter in the alphabet.
19
March 10, 2003. Barbara Materna, DHS, Ted Smith, SVTC Executive Director, Sheila Davis, SVTC Project Director Clean
Computer Campaign, visited Micro Metallics, in Roseville, CA
20
March 13, 2003. Ted Smith Executive, SVTC Executive Director, and Sheila Davis, SVTC Project Director Clean Computer
Campaign, visited the recycling facility at the US Penitentiary in Atwater, CA
21
Letter to Ted Smith from Larry Novicky, General Manager, UNICOR Recycled Products and Services, March 19,2003
22
Letter received by SVTC from John Doe A.
23
John Doe A.
24
Occupational Risks Associated with Electronic Demanufacturing and CRT Glass Processing Operations and the Impact
of Mitigation Activities on Employee Safety and Health, Neil Peters-Michaud, John Katers, et al
25
Email memo to SVTC Clean Computer Campaign Director, Sheila Davis, from Larry Novicky, General Manager Recycling Business Group Federal Prison Industries, 5-12-03
26
SVTC, as well as the California Department of Health Services, requested air monitoring results from the time periods
before and immediately after our visit. These air-monitoring results have not been provided by the prison officials.
27
Occupational Risks Associated with Electronic Demanufacturing and CRT Glass Processing Operations and the
Impact of Mitigation Activities on Employee Safety and Health, Neil Peters-Michaud, John Katers, Jim Barry, IEEE
2

International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 2003
28
OSHA Instruction FAP 1.2A April 10, 1995 Office of Federal Agency Programs
29
BILLIE AUSTIN BRYANT v. UNICOR/FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, Respondent, 1992
30
Letter received by SVTC from John Doe B.
31. Ibid.

State of California—Health and Human Services Agency

Department of Health Services
DIANA M. BONTÁ, R.N., Dr. P.H.
Director

GRAY DAVIS
Governor

June 11, 2003
Mr. Stephen Skurnac
President, Micro Metallics Corp.
1695 Monterey Highway
San Jose, CA 95112
Dear Mr. Skurnac:
Thank you for your participation in a walkthrough of the Micro Metallics Corp.
computer/electronics recycling operation at your Roseville, CA, facility on March 10,
2003. My involvement in this walkthrough was in response to a request from Ted Smith
of Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, to provide industrial hygiene expertise as part of an
overall effort to better understand the potential worker health and safety risks
associated with computer/electronics recycling. The Occupational Health Branch (OHB)
of the California Department of Health Services is a non-regulatory public health
program that conducts research into the causes of work-related disease and injury,
makes recommendations for improved control of workplace hazards, and provides
technical assistance to employers, workers, government agencies, organizations, and
individuals.
Enclosed is a brief report of the process, potential health and safety hazards, and health
and safety program based on my direct observations during the walkthrough and
conversations with several Micro Metallics personnel, including Mr. John Quinn, EH&S
Manager. Because of the brief nature of this visit, which was intended to serve as a
comparison to the computer recycling operation at Atwater Federal Penitentiary, I did
not request or have the opportunity to review the many health and safety records
maintained by the company. I also did not conduct private interviews with plant-level
employees during this visit beyond asking a few questions as we walked through the
area and having a follow-up phone call with the Chief Shop Steward. Therefore, my
report is limited to what I observed or discussed with a limited number of company
employees.
Typically, an OHB walkthrough results in our issuing recommendations for
improvements to the company's health and safety program. The few concerns I had
after the walkthrough were in the area of ergonomics, which I consider to be one of the
more significant potential hazards. However, after discussing the topics with Mr. Quinn
(e.g., controversy over the use of back belts, suggested suspension of air-driven tools
from above in order to decrease ergonomic stress), I felt that these points had been
considered or (in the case of the tools) already addressed.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BRANCH
1515 Clay Street, Ste. 1901, Oakland, CA 94612
510/622-4300 www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb

Mr. Steve Skurnac
June 11, 2003
Page 2
It was a good experience to visit a work site where there appears to be a significant
investment in occupational and environmental health and safety, and also mechanisms
that encourage the involvement of employees in addressing health and safety issues.
Thank you again for your time. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (510) 622-4343 or bmaterna@dhs.ca.gov.
Sincerely,

Barbara Materna, Ph.D., CIH
Chief, Occupational Health Branch
Enclosure
cc:

Ted Smith, Executive Director
Sheila Davis
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
760 N. First St.
San Jose, CA 95112
John Quillan
EH&S Manager
Micro Metallics Corp.
8855 Washington Blvd.
Roseville, CA 95678
James Napper
Chief Shop Steward
Micro Metallics Corp.
8855 Washington Blvd.
Roseville, CA 95678

OHB Walkthrough at Micro Metallics Corp.

June 11, 2003

Micro Metallics Corp. Computer/Electronics Recycling Operation
8855 Washington Blvd., Roseville, CA
This description of the company's operation and employee health and safety program is
provided by Barbara Materna, Ph.D., CIH, Chief of the Occupational Health Branch, California
Department of Health Services. It is based on a walkthrough of the facility on March 10, 2003,
and follow-up telephone calls with the EH&S Manager and Chief Shop Steward (the workers are
represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local
Lodge 190). The visit was initiated by Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition in an effort to better
understand the work process and provisions for worker health and safety for a computer
recycling operation in the private sector, for comparison to a computer recycling operation in
Atwater Federal Prison.
Description of Process
This operation, which was set up in 1996 through a partnership with Hewlett-Packard Company
(H-P), receives end-of-life commercial and consumer electronic products (computers, monitors,
printers, scanners, copiers) from H-P and, to a lesser extent, other customers. The equipment
is tested, sorted and disassembled to recover valuable parts and remove hazardous
components (batteries, ink, toner, cathode ray tubes, mercury switches, etc.) prior to recycling.
The recycling process involves reducing materials to small pieces via shearing, shredding and
grinding operations, and sorting the mixed material into separate recyclable commodity streams
(ferrous metals, nonferrous metals with high precious metals content, aluminum-containing
material, and a residual mix of plastic and nonferrous metals). The separation is done using
various techniques including size-specific screens, a magnetic process, and an eddy current
separator.
The testing, sorting, and disassembly processes are performed by a total of 110 employees
(many of them female) on two shifts. The recycling process is located in a separate section of
the facility. This process is mechanized, entirely enclosed and under local exhaust ventilation
with a baghouse for environmental control of dust contaminants. There is a total of twelve
employees on two shifts in this department, whose jobs include mechanically emptying boxed
electronic components (e.g., circuit boards, the "insides" of printers and other equipment) into
the recycling operation, moving loaded boxes of separated material using forklifts, monitoring
the equipment from observing video screens in a control room, and maintaining the equipment.
The resulting materials that contain precious and nonferrous metals are sent to a Noranda Inc.
smelter in Canada for metals recovery. There are no melting operations at this site. Other
materials produced here are sent to plastics recyclers, ferrous smelters, aluminum smelters,
and other facilities equipped to recycle or handle hazardous waste. Cathode ray tubes from
computer monitors are sent to Envirocycle, a company in Pennsylvania that processes CRTs for
reuse of the glass.
Potential Health and Safety Hazards
Various representatives of the company stated that the work-related injuries most often seen in
this workforce include muscle strains from materials handling, carpal tunnel syndrome from
disassembly operations, lacerations from sharp metal edges or (in the past) knives used in
cutting tape, and injuries related to forklift operation.
Based on the walkthrough, the key health and safety hazards for which control measures are
needed include:
1

OHB Walkthrough at Micro Metallics Corp.

•
•
•
•
•

June 11, 2003

Ergonomic hazards - materials handling in both the disassembly and recycling areas;
repetitive tasks and use of hand tools in disassembly
Noise - in the recycling area
Laceration or eye hazards - sharp metal edges; flying particles of metal/plastics in recycling
area
Forklifts - potential for collision with pedestrians; other contact with machinery, equipment
Exposure to toxic heavy metals - when employees must perform tasks inside the recycling
equipment or maintenance activities related to the baghouse (environmental control device
for dusts)

Description of Health and Safety Program
The company's health and safety program is comprehensive and demonstrates a high level of
management commitment and investment of resources. The potential hazards listed above are
addressed by a combination of control measures that were either observed during the
walkthrough or described by company or worker representatives. Some of the features of the
health and safety program that are notable include:
•

High level of worker involvement - A safety committee is made up of worker representatives
who meet monthly, review issues raised by employees (there is a standard form which
employees can use), and make recommendations to management for health and safety
improvements. The EH&S Manager is available for technical support but does not
participate in decision making. All employees participate in monthly meetings where safety
issues are discussed and workers provide input.

•

Trained staff who are dedicated to health and safety and environmental issues - This plant,
which has a total of approximately 125 employees, has a full-time EH&S manager with a
background in adult education and specialized training in hazardous materials management
and ergonomics. Additional assistance is provided by two associates (plant-level staff) who
have been provided with training in hazardous materials management, and one associate
who has been provided training in industrial hygiene.

•

Routine inspections and air monitoring to identify and assess hazards - Monthly safety
inspections are performed which include review of the use of personal protective equipment
(PPE), forklift safety, emergency and other equipment, labeling, housekeeping, etc. The
EH&S Manager states that he spends two hours out on the shop floor each day, observing
operations on both shifts and conversing with employees. Air monitoring is conducted
regularly for various contaminants (e.g., lead, cadmium, beryllium, chromium) and job tasks.

•

Continuous employee training - The company has a full program for employee training on
topics such as ergonomics, lockout/tagout, respirators, forklifts, hearing conservation,
hazard recognition, and hazard communication. EH&S staff receive training to increase
their EH&S knowledge and skills, and be able to provide training to employees on health
and safety topics. There is a trained emergency response team to address first aid, spills,
and emergencies, and also a program for on-the-job training in proper use of tools and
equipment.

•

Use of appropriate engineering and work practice controls - The fact that the recycling
operation is automated, enclosed, and ventilated, greatly reduces risks associated with
materials handling and exposure to toxic contaminants. During the walkthrough, various

2

OHB Walkthrough at Micro Metallics Corp.

June 11, 2003

types of equipment that reduce ergonomic hazards and risk of injury were observed,
including air-actuated hand tools (e.g., to reduce the force needed to remove screws) and
mechanized lifting devices. To minimize exposure to dust, brooms have been replaced with
rubber squeegees or rakes and HEPA vacuum units.
•

Use of appropriate personal protective equipment - There is a respirator program that covers
the use of full-face respirators which are worn by employees who have to access or enter
the recycling operation or perform maintenance on the baghouse. Other types of PPE
observed during the walkthrough include hearing protection and safety glasses (both are
required in the recycling area), and cut-resistant gloves.

•

Housekeeping and maintenance procedures - For example, there are scheduled procedures
for periodically cleaning all room surfaces using a HEPA vacuum, and for maintaining the
baghouse.

•

Medical program - The workers with the highest potential for exposure to toxic substances
(e.g., those who service the recycling equipment) receive annual blood lead level testing,
audiometry, spirometry, and a physical examination.

3