Transcript E-Scrap 2007 Recycler Requirements

New State
E-Scrap
Programs:
A Business
Opportunity Or A
Business Bust For
Processors?
E-SCRAP 2007
Overview
• NCER Overview
• State Laws
• Comparison of Key Elements
–
–
–
–
Reporting/Registration Requirements
Financial/Operational Requirements – Who Pays?
ESM Guidelines
Timelines
• Key Considerations
About Us
• Non-profit 501c3
• Located in Parkersburg, WV area
• MARCEE Project, NERIC
• NCER’s Mission: Dedicated to the development and
enhancement of a national infrastructure for the recycling of
used electronics in the U.S. through:
1)
2)
3)
The coordination of initiatives targeting the recycling of used
electronics
Participation in pilot projects to advance and encourage
electronics recycling
The development of programs that reduce the burden of
government through private management of electronics recycling
systems
States with
Mandated
Programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
California (2003)
Maine (2004)
Maryland (2005)
Washington State (2006)
Minnesota (2007)
Oregon (2007)
Texas (2007)
North Carolina (2007)
REGISTRATION
Key
Elements
Comparison
Registration
Requirements
• CA: Yes, need to become registered collector,
recycler or both
• CT: Yes, need to be approved recycler
• ME: Yes, consolidator approval process, or work as
consolidator’s recycler
• MD: No
• MN: Yes, registration form for collectors and recyclers
Registration
Requirements
• NC: No, but may be included in manufacturer plans
• OR: No
• WA: Yes for collectors and processors,
must be “in compliance”
• TX: No
ESM REQUIREMENTS
Key
Elements
Comparison
Specific ESM
Guidelines
• CA:
• CT:
• ME:
• MD:
• MN:
Yes, need to follow DTSC UW handler regs
TBD by DEP, EPA Plug-In is baseline
Yes, must give sworn statement
No
No, but must certify downstream follows
applicable law
Specific ESM
Guidelines
•OR: Yes
•NC: No, but must be described only in
manufacturer plans
•TX: Yes, DEQ to adopt ISRI or other standards
•WA: Yes
FINANCIAL
Key
Elements
Comparison
Who Pays &
Other Financials
• CA: State pays $.20/lb collection, $.28/lb
processing, extensive documentation
• CT: must bill each manufacturer actual count, rates
approved by state
• ME: must bill each manufacturer actual count +
orphan*, rates approved by state
2006: 115 manufacturers received bills from 3 consolidators
• MN: must get manufacturer/s contract, rates set in
contract or via bid
Who Pays &
Other Financials
• NC: Unclear, “collectors” to have costs covered
• OR: State DEQ via “contractor program” or
individual/joint manufacturer plans,; rates via bids
• WA: Authority board or its designee; or independent
plan, rates via bid
• TX: manufacturer pay chosen recyclers via contractual
agreement or bids
RECYCLING
RESTRICTIONS
Key
Elements
Comparison
Restrictions
• CA: “cancellation” in state, export
notifications
• CT: Follow Plug-in at minimum, no export for
disposal
• ME: no energy recovery/combustion, export
documentation as part of ESM requirements
• MN: no incineration, no prison labor
Restrictions
• NC: none
• OR: no incineration/energy recovery
(smelting allowed)
• WA: no incineration/energy recovery
(smelting allowed), no prison labor
• TX: none, indirect prison labor ban
Timelines/
Deadlines
• July 1, 2007: Pounds “recycled” in MN
can count toward manufacturer yearly goal
• January 1, 2008: Manufacturers (including TV
manufacturers) must pay registration fee in MD
• January 1, 2008: Manufacturers must declare standard
or independent plan participation status in WA
• January 1, 2008: Standard and Independent Plans due
in WA
Timelines/
Deadlines
• June 30, 2007: Pounds recycled in MN after this date
do not count on FY 07-08 manufacturer
• September 1, 2008: Manufacturers file 07-08 registration
forms, including penalty for not meeting goal
• September 1, 2008: TX requirements can be enforced
• And the BIG Deadline ….
Timelines/
Deadlines
January 1, 2009
•
•
•
•
Plans must be fully operational in WA
Plans must be fully operational in OR
Manufacturers start paying for CT returns
Manufacturer start paying collectors in NC
Impact &
Considerations
Jumping In?
E-Scrap News Survey:
90-100 recyclers surveyed
• 29.16% of respondents currently operate in CA or ME
• 54.08% of respondents say they have plans to operate in one or
more of the states that have passed e-scrap legislation.
Buyer Beware:
• Some registered CA recyclers have dropped out,
• In ME only 3 of 6 consolidators were operational in 2006
(with one taking over 95%)
• In MN, existing contracts with locals do not guarantee
payment/contracts from manufacturers
Producer
Managed or
Just Paid?
• Exception is CA: ARF system managed by state gov’t
• Producer Paid: ME and CT, possibly NC
• Manufacturers don’t direct collection flows or choose
recyclers
• Producer Managed: MN, OR, TX, and WA
• Manufacturers can choose collectors/recyclers and
their volume, set prices via bid
Processing Price
Pressure
• A driving consideration in
producer-managed systems like
Minnesota, Washington
• Less of an issue in systems where
prices are set or regulated by the state
like California, Maine, Connecticut
Get Out Your Oars!
• Prepare for significant float on invoices!
• CA currently down to 26 days to approve claim
• ME delays in getting approved vendor status with
manufacturer accounting departments
•
With desktops, CT adds numerous new
manufacturers to receive and unknown number of
recyclers to send bills
• Should be less concern with direct manufacturer/
group contracts
The
Collector
Squeeze
• Collectors in CA are becoming
more sophisticated in making arrangements w/ recyclers
 Drive among recyclers is getting supply, and collectors control
much of the supply in California
• Concern about collection costs is driving
manufacturers to make direct arrangements with
collectors in Minnesota, Washington
State-based
Limitations
• California’s “cancellation” requirement means
recyclers have to be in state
Allows State Gov’t audits
• In general, states can’t audit out of state entity
Workarounds to require certification from
manufacturer/plan
• No similar requirements in any other states
WA encourages use of local infrastructure
Interstate commerce Clause issues
• Export management options limited
Characteristics of
Producer Managed
Systems
• Price pressures are strong on recyclers and collectors
• Recyclers must be auditable and have transparent
operations
• Probably facilitates recycler consolidation
Manufacturers say “the smaller the recycler the bigger my
auditing costs”
Smaller recyclers will not be on most manufacturer radar
screens for systems like Texas, North Carolina
Characteristics of
Producer Managed
Systems (cont)
• A new niche service industry is developing rapidly to
service manufacturers subject to these new mandates
• Is *not* developing as non-profit, trade assn model
• Roles in new industry overlap, trajectory still unclear
Manufacturer owned and operated?
 Electronic Manufacturers Recycling Management Company, LLC
(Panasonic, Toshiba, Sharp)
Managed by traditional processor?
 Sony/Waste Management initiative
Managed by specialty service provider?
 Product Ecology LLC (Alcorn Consulting, Strategic Counsel LLC,
NCER)
Characteristics of All
State Legislated
Systems
• Reuse is an uncomfortable fit in state-mandated
recycling systems
Desired and encouraged, but not paid for
• Non-covered devices will be there, what to do?
Within guidelines, do you accept or reject?
• Trend is toward making producers pay, if not giving
operational responsibility
• Requirements are different in every state
Thank You!
Jason Linnell, NCER
Phone: (304) 699-1008
[email protected]
Visit us on the web:
www.ncerwv.org
& www.ecyclingresource.org