Advertisement

News Wire

LTG Statement on Basel Action Network E-Trash Transparency Project Report

HONG KONG – An E-Trash Transparency Project report from Basel Action Network (BAN) that GPS-tracked 200 electronic waste products cites a printer that was exported from the United States and disposed of at a non-certified facility in New Territories, Hong Kong. In this report, Good Point Recycling, a US-based electronics recycler, claims this device was provided to Li Tong Group for processing through its downstream partner, ARCOA Group. The BAN report disputes this claim, and after a thorough internal investigation Li Tong Group can confirm the BAN Report findings that this device was never provided to Li Tong Group. In fact, Li Tong Group has never conducted business with either Good Point Recycling or ARCOA Group. 

 Li Tong Group can also confirm that it did not receive any printer of the model in question from any partners in Hong Kong during the time period covered by the BAN study. Li Tong Group has never conducted any business whatsoever with the non-certified New Territories facility cited in the BAN Report. 

As a leading provider of reverse supply chain management solutions for the world's top tech and telecomm companies, Li Tong Group prides itself on commercially and environmentally sustaining practices. Li Tong Group encourages accountability and is fully committed to transparency and sustainability at all of its facilities. 

The Li Tong Group facilities located in Hong Kong are fully compliant with the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department's (EPD) local regulations. It holds EPD licensure as a Registered Waste Producer that ensures the disposal, collection and transport of waste is carried out in a manner that prevents and mitigates environmental damage. Li Tong Group also holds EPD licensures for the Disposal of Chemical Waste. 

These Hong Kong-based facilities are ISO 9001:2008, ISO 14001:2004 and OHSAS 18001:2007 certified for asset recovery and electronics recycling—using advanced technical expertise and specialized processes for collecting, sorting, dismantling and recycling electronic waste for its clients.

Li Tong Group also holds several internationally recognized standards certificates for the recycling industry, including R2 (Responsible Recycling) and RIOS (Recycling Industry Operating Standard)—the highest standard for the electronics recycling industry. Li Tong Group was the first company in the Asia-Pacific region to hold both R2 and RIOS certification.   

3 comments on “LTG Statement on Basel Action Network E-Trash Transparency Project Report

  1. WR3A
    October 25, 2016

    Good Point Recycling never claimed to have shipped to LTG.  In fact, Good Point Recycling insists it never exported a device to Hong Kong at all.

    Li Tong Group is an example of a state of the art recycler based in Asia which has been unwittingly and unwillingly profiled by the Basel Action Network's neo-colonialist ewaste boycott.   The EcoPark in Yuen Ling is in the New Territories, which also include modern cities like Tin Shui Wai.

    The article makes an incorrect attribution.  My company, Good Point Recycling of Vermont, did not export ANY device to ANY Hong Kong Recycler.  The device BAN tracked was sent to one of two certified recyclers in greater Chicago.  One is an e-Steward, another is R2.  We presume the device was exported by the R2 recycler which provided documentation on R2 certified destinations in Hong Kong, but we in now way participated in that export.

    details online at retroworks.blogspot.com/2016/10/breaking-li-tong-group-disputes-ban.html

    What we DID track through the EcoPark, using BAN's GPS information provided to Washington State regulators, was an LCD sent to California which does appear to go to, or close to, an address at the EcoPark where Li Tong Group has an address.  That tracked device wound up in Tin Shui Wai – a rather modern, densely populated city, where we presume the device is being reused.

    Mixing our role as advocate for WR3A members on the west coast with my role as employer in Vermont is misleading.  Hong Kong does indeed have legal and honorable recyclers in Hong Kong (that geography does not define illegality under Basel Convention).  We did not export anything to Hong Kong, period, and to try to drive a wedge between us and the Tech Sector recyclers in emerging markets – who Fair Trade Recycling steadfastly supports – is dishonest.

  2. JimPuckett
    October 30, 2016

    Dear Reader:

    There is a great deal of misinformation and misrepresentation of data presented in the comment by Mr. Ingenthron of Good Point Recycling.  Its a good idea to set the record straight.

    The Basel Action Network (BAN) undertook a study on e-waste movements in the US by deploying GPS tracking devices in 205 different monitors and printers. One of these devices, a printer, passed through Mr. Ingenthron's Good Point Recycling facility in Vermont, after first being delivered to the Earthworm Recycling company in Massachusetts.  It then appeared in the Chicago area and then finally ending up in Hong Kong. We discussed the story of this tracker and highlight the especially grim details of the Hong Kong location where ended up  in our project's second report entitled “Scam Recycling” (pages 56-57) The report can be found at the BAN website.   

    Below we correct some of the false assertions made by Mr. Ingenthron:

    1.  We never said that Good Point directly shipped to Li Tong Group or to Hong Kong.  We reported what Mr. Ingenthron had said in his letter to MIT — that he believed that his downstream vendor ARCOA near Chicago exported the printer in question to Li Tong, after Good Point had shipped it to ARCOA.

     2.  We have done nothing to harm an unwitting and unwilling Li Tong Group.  It was Mr. Ingenthron that brought Li Tong Group into the picture when he intimated to MIT that there is no scandal in exporting to a company like Li Tong. But in fact the printer did not go to Li Tong but went to an electronics junkyard in Hong Kong's new territories. We stand by our publication's description of the facts and we agree with Li Tong that they were not the ultimate destination of the printer in question.

     3.  Mr. Ingenthron misuses our data to make assumptions that are not responsibly made when he claims that a device leaving a Washington State company that was found to have been involved in an export chain, went to EcoPark in Hong Kong, where Li Tong operates a facility, and then ended up being reused.  These assumptions are leaps of imagination and cannot be inferred on the available tracker data. The “datapoint” Mr. Ingenthron references as being near EcoPark, is from a very a reading of a cell tower coordinate (could be 5 or more miles away from the tracker) which cannot be used in the same way as precise satelite reads the trackers are also capable of making when conditions are right.  In this case, we received no accurate GPS confirmation that ANY of our trackers ever went to EcoPark nor to any other state-of-the art facilities in Hong Kong.  But we were able to visit over 20 of the 47 facilities that our trackers did find in Hong Kong — all of which were informal polluting operations. Also our trackers cannot determine whether something is later reused or not.

     4. Actually, with respect to legal geographies, Hong Kong, as part of China, cannot legally import any hazardous waste from the United States.

     5.  Nobody is trying to drive any “wedges”.  Again it was not BAN that raised the issue of Li Tong — but rather Mr. Ingenthron.  We have merely reported the facts as we know them to be.  

    Jim Puckett, Basel Action Network

     

  3. WR3A
    November 2, 2016

    Jim – Please desist in representing my company ever claimed to have anything to do with this fine company in Hong Kong.  Your reference seems to be a private letter sent to MIT, in which we were requesting the very information that was being obscured on the MoniTour website – where out downstream sent the printer.  They had provided only R2 certified downstreams, which clearly remained a possibility so long as the type of printer, coordinates, etc. were obscured. We cited LTG as an example of a company which could have been obscured.  But the central point of the letter to MIT was the methodology and adherance to Ethical Research principles.  See web.mit.edu/conduct/  If the information was obscured, we said, maybe it went someplace we'd be proud of.  That turned out not to be the case, but we did not claim to know, in facwe were demanding the information.

    We are going to stop referring to this state of the art company in Hong Kong because of the false associations you have created through misreading or misrepresenting an intellectual letter to MIT.  That MIT would send such a private letter to BAN, and that BAN would misconstrue the letter, makes our point, that MIT should be more careful not to “outsource” their methodology to a partner not bound by the fine institution's ethical research standards.

    These fine state of the art companies are not, as BAN has claimed, a “myth”. That is our only point, and to make it sound like we used them as an alibi is unethical.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.