Transcript Slide 1

ELECTRONICS INITIATIVES:
APPROACHES, INVENTORY
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SWANA Rocky Mountain Chapter
Conference, Rocky Ford, CO
Lisa A. Skumatz and Susie Gordon
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.
303/494-1178 [email protected]
October 4, 2007
TOPICS
 Introduction to Electronic Waste Issue
 Models for Regulatory Initiatives
 Updates on State Legislation
SERA
E-WASTE DISPOSAL DILEMMA
 Diversion not happening naturally in market:
 Although some valuable metals (gold, copper, …),
there are toxics, special handling, disposal issues,
and monitors alone include 8 lbs of lead each
 Hard to salvage because labor intensive -- needs
cheap manual labor / not in US
 Options: Prison, overseas, but antiquated smelting
methods led to worker safety issues
 Reuse rare – want “latest”
 Cost (and responsibility) issue…
 Logistics, privacy…
SERA
E-WASTE DISPOSAL DILEMMA
 Two-pronged Problem:
 Hazardous elements: Lead, mercury, cadmium,
arsenic, and brominated fire retardants (see
Townsend & Musson, 1999)
 Volume: 50 million units / yr + legacy + TV
replacement  about 3% of waste stream
SERA
E-WASTE DISPOSAL DILEMMA
 Or is it a 3-pronged problem…? Multiple
stakeholders with varied interests
 Manufacturers, retail, regulators, public, government,
recycling businesses, trade organizations, social
justice & environmental advocacy groups
 Has proved difficult to come to consensus even after
5 years of dialog
SERA
STATUS QUO IN US: “DO NOTHING
UNIFIED/PATCHWORK” SCENARIO
 Lack of consensus about regulations
 Largely community events
 Cost about $300-450/ton
 Other options: resale, charitable, recycling
businesses for fee, pickup by recycler (fee)
 Limited curbside collection
 Minneapolis example ($940/ton excl p/u; 2/3
processing, ¼ recy/disp, 7% hauling)
 California business development
 Electronic Waste Recovery and Recycling Act of 2004
helps companies get started (expect growth)
 Commercial ban (federal) / not households
SERA
STATUS QUO IN US: “DO
NOTHING” SCENARIO
 Some manufacturers offer “take back”
programs
 Dell (free to new purchasers & low cost for other
makes; home pickup)
 IBM (asset recovery for businesses + trade-in for cash,
recycling, disposal)
 Best Buy – events
 Lexmark, Apple, others
 EPA partnership programs (“Plug-Into eCycling”)
 Rethink initiative by E-Bay (decision tree for
disposal)
 Scorecard by EPEAT for evaluating products
 Stewardship pledges & certifications
 ISO, IAER, CHWMEG, Basel Action Network (BAN), ISRI
SERA
STATUS QUO IN US: BROADBASED ATTEMPTS
 Industry
 NEPSI
 dialog among stakeholder on def’n, options,
infrastructure, 3rd party role
 Many participants + gov’t + enviro 2001-2004
 No consensus because $$$, but liked uniformity
concept
 NERIC (Nat’l Electronics Recycling
Infrastructure clearinghouse)
 Economic analysis of patchwork approach showed
costs of $25mill/yr for each separte set of legislation
 Proposed private sector alternative to new
government agency
 Electronics manufacturers Coalition for
Responsible Recycling
 Opposes producer responsibility regulations
SERA
STATUS QUO IN US: BROADBASED ATTEMPTS
 Attempts at coalitions
 National computer take-back campaign,
Californians against waste, Silicon Valley Toxic
Coalition, Grass Roots Recycling Coalition
 Federal attempts
 Senate, House  proposals but not passed
 Working with coalitions (NRC, Mayors, NSWMA,
GPI, ISRI, beverages, etc.)
 EPA
 Involved in public discussion; unable to support
anything but voluntary; “partnerships”
 Legislation proliferates as “patchwork”
SERA
WHAT ARE THE DESIGN OPTIONS
FOR BROAD LEGISLATION?
 Producer responsibility (producer
responsibility, product stewardship, takeback)
 Advanced disposal (or recycling/recovery)
fees
 Shared responsibility
 Bans
 Restrictions
SERA
MODELS
Option Producer Resp: takeback
ADFs: fee @ POP
Pros
Free market, burden incorp in
mfg, discourages
obsolescence
Straightforward, influences
decisions/ recognition /
education; easy to fund pgm
Cons
Compet industry / sm.
margins, some gone
Not mfg incentive,
obsolescence,
Costs
By Producers  purch. Some
have gov’t share
Opt out if pay
Chgd to consumers
Like it
Enviro, govt
Industry, incl TVs
Dislike Manufacturers
Retailers (drive to web)
E.g.
CA
EU, ME, MD, WA
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY: Burden spread  consumer;
Allows cost of collection & transportation separated (IL, ME, MD)
SERA
MODELS
Option Bans from landfills (CRTs) Restrictions: heavy metal
Pros
Clear, effective
Decr. toxics, incr. recycling
profitability / less haz, helps
diversion; level playing field
Cons
Need program with it – Prod
resp, ADF, enforcement;
inefficient signal to mfg
Increases costs of production
(higher temp); reg/enforce;
coverage (spare parts, etc.)
Costs
Depends; usually end-users; Increase cost of prod’n 
enforcement by gov’t /
consumers; govt for enf.
violators
Like it
Enviro, gov’t, producers (if
quotas for coll’n imposed)
Enviro
Dislike Politicians, some enviro
Mfg
E.g.
EU, CA
ME, MD, MN, MA, CA
SERA
EUROPEAN UNION TAKES ACTION
– WEEE 2004
 Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(WEEE) Directive
 Producer Responsibility
 producers pay costs for programs to collect and
recycle their proportionate share of e-waste
 Prohibits hazardous substances (Restrictions on
Hazardous Substances, or RoHS) in electronics
 bans lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium,
polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDE) in new computers starting
July 1, 2006 (2009 for no mercury in monitors)
 Incentive for manufacturers to design less-toxic
products  drive production changes for US?
SERA
US BANS ON E-WASTE
DISPOSAL IN LANDFILLS
 Commercial sources already federally regulated
 electronic equipment that contains a cathode ray
tube (CRT) or mercury is considered hazardous waste
 regulations do not apply to residential sources, or
small quantity generators that generate <8 CRTs per
year
 Ban all sources of e-waste from landfill
disposal: ME, MD, MN, MA, CA
 Local bans, e.g.,
 City of Cheyenne landfill
 City of Loveland municipal trash system
 City of Fort Collins municipal trash system
SERA
13 STATES PASSED VARYING EWASTE LAWS 2004-2006
 Producer Responsibility recycling model:
ME, MD, WA
 Advance Recovery Fee: California EWaste Recycling Act
 In the first year, collected 64 million
pounds of “covered” waste and $73
million revenue.
 Landfill bans
 MN, AR, RI, NH, CA, ME, MA
SERA
UPDATES ON LEGISLATION
(2007)
 73 measures proposed
during 2007
 Bills enacted in 13
states, including full
recycling requirements
in:
 Oregon
 Texas
 Connecticut
 North Carolina
 Minnesota
 Internationally
 Canada (Alberta,
Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Nova
Scotia, Manitoba, and
British Columbia)
 China
 South Korea
 Japan
 US Federal legislation
continues to be proposed
Business model issues…
SERA
STATUS OF 2007 MEASURES
Bills / type
Passed
Considered
Dead
Study Committee
0
1
2 (MS and VA)
Refinements to
Existing Programs
1
4
1 (CA)
ADF / ARF
0
0
1 (SC)
Producer
Responsibility
5
5
30 (CT, HI, IL, MA, MN, NC, NE,
NM, NY, OR, RI, SC, TX, UT VT)
Ban CRT /Landfill
0
1
1 (MI)
Cellphone Take-Back
2
0
1 (MS)
Miscellaneous
5
2
11 (CT, IA, IN, MS, NM, NV, NY,
WA)
Source: E-Scrap News, 2007
Remarkable variety of states!
SERA
SUMMARY & IMPLICATIONS…
 Problem / limited progress
 Remarkable recognition by many states
 EU leadership
 Preferred model would include:
 Level playing field, mfg incentives, education,
cost efficiencies
 Universal across nation
 Multi-part legislation to combine best
elements
 Producer responsibility, ADF/ARF, and
restrictions
 Barring that – local bans?
 Keep posted…!
SERA
THANK YOU! …QUESTIONS?
Contact Info:
Lisa Skumatz and Susie Gordon
SERA (www.serainc.com)
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
303/494-1178
[email protected]
SERA