Transcript Overview of Electronics Recycling Systems and Policies

Overview of
Electronics
Recycling Systems
and Policies
Jason Linnell
Executive Director, NCER
Overview
• NCER Background
• State Responses to Challenge
– Washington Law and Implementation
• State Activity 2007
• Federal Activity
• Trends/Outlook
National Center for
Electronics Recycling
Mission: Dedicated to the development and enhancement of a national
infrastructure for the recycling of used electronics in the U.S. through:
1)
1)
2)
•
•
The coordination of initiatives targeting the recycling of used electronics
in the United States
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
Non-profit 501c3
Located in Parkersburg, WV area (Davisville)

Polymer Tech Park
How are states
handling the challenge?
• Four programs with mandatory financing
 CA, ME, MD, MN, and WA
 55 million US residents or 18% of US population
• Others with recent study commissions
 MO, IL, RI, LA
• Upcoming or recent disposal bans
 MN, NH, RI, AR (others MA, CA)
• Coordinated regional policy strategy
 Northeast States: CT, DE, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT
 Midwest States: MN, MI, IL, WI, IA
Washington Law
• Newest Law (for now) – signed March 2006
 4th major state electronics recycling program
 Different than other 3 in significant ways
• Producer Responsibility with default
 Manufacturer responsible for “equivalent share” either on own
or pay into State quasi-govt organization
 No collection goal, but must meet your % at year’s end or pay
penalty
(refund if collecting more than %)
 Ban on exports to developing countries according to Basel Convention
[VETOED]
Washington Product
Scope
•
Any monitor, TV or other video
display over 4”
•
Desktop computers
•
Laptop computers
•
All from covered entities only:
households, small businesses,
charities, small governments and
school districts
Washington Law
Implementation
• Manufacturer Administration Fee
Registration and Fee required 1/5/07 for sale or penalty
to manufacturer & retailer
Based on market share: $23 - $48,900
As of mid-April, 125 manufacturers with 173 total
brands registered
Covers Dept of Ecology costs to administer program,
NOT recycling or administrative costs of quasi-govt
TPO (Authority or WMMFA)
Washington MMFA
• Establishment of WMMFA Board
 Board Members for 2007: Apple, Deer Park Computer Sales and
Service, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Philips, Samsung, Sony, Wal-Mart
 Authority responsible for “Standard Plan,” certain manufacturers
must participate (not eligible for independent plan)
• Challenges for WMMFA
 Public vs private entity? Subject to open meetings? How to hire
staff/counsel?
 Loan from state approved for startup costs, costs of Ecology
staff to be repaid
• Standard and Independent Plans due Feb 2008
WA Standard and
Independent Plans
• Manufacturers may/must join Standard Plan (no choice if a white box
or new entrant manufacturer) to manage and finance recycling program
• Manufacturers may start an independent plan on their own or with
others (if combined return share above 5%)
• Manufacturers may start on own or with others an independent plan
(if combined return share above 5%)
• Retailer may not sell covered products if manufacturer is not
registered and part of an approved plan
•
Violation for both retailer and manufacturer
Washington
Return Share
• Alternative approach to complete brand
count as in Maine
Determine % for each manufacturer based on random
samples throughout year
Processors may be performing sampling
• Return Share Sampling
NCER Project for Dept of Ecology, with statisticians
Sampling used for setting “manufacturer return shares”
in June 2010, final in August 2010
“Equivalent Share”
• Usually return share among identified manufacturers
– Distributes costs of unclaimed brands/orphans/unlabeled
across companies claiming brands
– Washington’s program combines weights for all 4 product
categories to determine return share
• Washington State definition of equivalent share
– “the weight in pounds of covered electronic products
identified for an individual manufacturer under this chapter as
determined by the department under section 20 of this act,”
basically:
• Numerator is return share among identified/compliant manufacturers
• Denominator is the total pounds collected by all plan during the
“previous program year”
“Equivalent Share”
Examined (cont.)
• “If my BDMS return share is 5%, what will my
equivalent share be in Washington”
– Actual pounds will not be known until summer 2010
– Assume 80% of all return by weight will be claimed
• That means 5% goes to 6.25%
–
–
–
–
Assume about 2 lbs/capita collected in first year
Equivalent Share: 750,000 lbs.
Assume cost of 45 cents/lb. collected
Total projected year 1 cost: $337,500
Comparing the States
Product Scope
Commonalities
•
All cover [most] TVs, computer monitors and laptop
computers over 4 inch screen size
Differences
•
WA and MD only cover desktop computers
o
•
•
•
ME covers only for brand labeling, not recycling
[MD only state that excludes TVs]
CA exempts certain projection TVs if actual internal
display is less than 4 inches (i.e. LCD PTVs)
WA exemptions are more expansive than others (i.e.
handheld portable voice or data devices, etc)
Comparing the
Financing
• CA: Point of Sale fee, to state agency, all sellers and sales
• ME: No state funding, or manufacturer registration fees,
locals fund household collection, manufacturers from
consolidation on
• MD: Annual manufacturer registration fee, state agency
administration
• WA: Annual manufacturer registration fee + all costs for
meeting “equivalent share” on own or through new quasigovernment TPO
Financing-Specific
Challenges
• CA: Can’t enforce on out of state sellers
• ME: No funds for collection, finding and
enforcing on manufacturers out of country,
reliable orphan data
• MD: Finding manufacturers with different product
scope, funding insufficient for major state program
• WA: State setting “equivalent share,” unknown
total quantities, finding/enforcing on
manufacturers
Disposal Bans
• In effect
 California: CRTs and all consumer electronic devices
 Massachusetts: CRTs
 Maine: CRTs
 Minnesota: CRTs
• Upcoming
 Rhode Island: CRTs
 New Hampshire (video display devices)
 Arkansas: authority to DEQ in 2010
Patchwork Study
• NCER initiative under National Electronics Recycling
Infrastructure Clearinghouse
 www.ecyclingresource.org
• ID and quantify “dead weight” costs of differing state programs
 Sought input from all stakeholders
 Assumes 2 additional states by 2012
• Findings
 Recurring costs per year: $25 million
 One time costs per new state: $3 million
A Study of the
State-by-State
E-Waste Patchwork
An analysis of its economic
and other effects on industry,
government and consumers
October 2006
State Legislation Activity 2007
Legislation
in 2007
• Currently 17 states with active bills
 8 states already rejected bills (HI, IN, KY, MS, NM, RI, UT, VA)
• Types of Bills
 Advanced recovery fees – SC, NJ, MA
 Producer responsibility, NERC/Midwest Models
• CT, MA, NC, NE, NJ, NY, PA, VT
• OR, MN
• NC, SC, TN, TX (no TVs program)
 Studies, commissions & task forces – MI
 Existing law changes – CA
 Tax credits, other – CO
Bills Passed
in 2007 (so far)
• Arkansas: landfill disposal fees to
support computer/electronics recycling
and delay disposal ban to 2010
• Maryland: changes to existing law
• Montana: requires DEQ to provide info
on safe disposal or recycling
Federal Activity
Congress
• 2005: E-Waste Working Group
– four House Representatives
2 Hearings in House, one in Senate (2005)
Meetings held in late 2006 by House WG
• Currently 1 bill in House (Thompson)
• Senator Wyden stakeholder meetings Mar-Apr
2007
Conclusions/
Outlook
• More to learn in 2007
 CA implementation compared to MD/ME
 Movement towards WA implementation
• More state programs?
 MA, MN, CT, MI, OR, IL, (TX, SC)
 Pressure on RI, NH in 2008 from 2006 bills
 How will regional models be followed to ensure harmonization?
• Will Congress move on legislation?
Will increasing state differences lead to
more national action? Look for update of Patchwork
Study
Thank You!
Jason Linnell, NCER
Phone: (304) 699-1008
[email protected]
Visit us on the web:
www.ncerwv.org