E-WASTE: THE NEW WASTE CRISIS Legislative and Regulatory
Download
Report
Transcript E-WASTE: THE NEW WASTE CRISIS Legislative and Regulatory
R
AIChE
July 2006
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Solutions to the Challenge
of Electronic Waste
Wayne Rifer
Rifer Environmental
Green Electronics Council
[email protected]
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Contents
1 Costs and Impacts of
E-Waste Management
2 Status of a national solution
3 Options for state legislation
4 Prognosis
The U.S. E-Waste
Challenge
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
U.S. lacks recycling
infrastructure
U.S. e-scrap exported to developing countries
Current Recycling rate: 10 - 14%
Cost to recycle: $10 - $25 per unit
3 millions tons nationally
1/2 of HHs have an obsolete CRT in storage
Much U.S. e-scrap shipped overseas
EOL Electronic Products
A New Kind of Garbage
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
The dilemma
E-waste is not readily compatible with
current waste management technologies
Technical wastes
Waste authorities have responsibility,
but lack knowledge and control
Toxics in Electronics
R
I
F
E
R
Toxics
Lead, cadmium, mercury & chromium
Brominated flame-retardants & PVC
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Univ. of Florida study determines CRTs
meet characteristics of hazardous waste
Fail TCLP
From large generators, not HHs
EPA rule to exclude CRTs for recycling
Other components fail TCLP
Exporting Harm
R
Video by Basel Action
Network (BAN) & Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition
(SVTC), February ‘02
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Portrays Chinese recycling
operations extremely harmful to
human health and environment
Computer Take Back Campaign
has pressured manufacturers to
implement take back, cease
export, and improve
environmental design
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
New Ideas Emerge about
Responsibility for Product Wastes
Whoever designs, makes, sells or uses a
product should take responsibility for
minimizing its environmental impact. This
responsibility spans the product's life
cycle - from selection of raw materials to
design and production processes to its
use and disposal.
The Goal
R
I
F
E
R
With consistent standards nationwide
Providing economies of scale
And allowing local service variations
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
A single national solution
Role of state action
To incubate solutions
To drive national action
To provide interim services
R
I
F
E
R
The National EOL Debate:
National Electronic Product
Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI)
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Europe legislates
U.S. negotiates
R
The NEPSI Process
I
F
E
R
Began June ‘01 – 3+ years
E
Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue
15 manufacturers
15 state, local & federal governments
18 ‘others’ – recyclers, NGOs,
academics, retailers, etc.
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Positions at the Starting-Line
R
I
F
E
R
Not government’s responsibility
To shift costs
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Government
NGOs
Producer responsibility as design driver
Waste diversion
Manufacturers
Traditional model of waste management
Last user or government pays
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
The NEPSI Outcome
A system that could work
No effective agreement
R
I
F
E
R
The System that Could Work
Hybrid Financing
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Two-phase system
Begins with an Advanced Recovery Fee
(ARF)
Evolves to Partial Cost Internalization (PCI)
Rationale
ARF creates infrastructure & covers costs of
orphan/historic waste
PCI will drive design improvement
The NEPSI Product Scope
R
I
F
E
R
Computer systems (CPUs, monitors,
keyboards, etc.)
Computer peripherals (printers, scanners)
Televisions
From residents and small businesses
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
R
M
o
n
e
y
Consumer
Fee Remitter
I
F
E
R
Assurance of
EnvironmentallySound Processing
TPO
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Retailer
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
Reuse
Organization
Municipality
User @ End
of Product
Life
Local
Recycler
Consolidation,
processing
contractors
Remanufacturer
Recycler
Mail-Back
Payment for
product collected
Product can flow
direct to processor
The Fundamental Divide
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Both industry & environmental advocates
1 Visible (consumer) fee (ARF)
Financial Responsibility
Obligation based on market share
Collective implementation
2 Producer (Manufacturer) Responsibility
Mandated responsibility to recycle share of
product
Obligation based on returned share
Individual cost internalization
Industry Dynamics
R
I
F
E
R
Roughly, big vs. small
Positions
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
HP, Dell
CE industry, IBM, Apple
White Box (~30%)
Favor PR
Favor ARF
?
R
I
F
E
R
A Scan of Legislative Trends
State Legislation Introduced ‘03
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
47 substantive measures introduced
10 Producer responsibility
10 Consumer fees
9 Government solutions
2 Shared responsibility
5 Disposal bans
4 Advisory committees
Also rans: Labeling, green procurement,
surplus property, education
One Passed
California SB 20
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Consumer fee bill in 2002
Davis vetoed, called for Producer
Responsibility
SB 20, 2003, began as Producer
Responsibility
Passed as consumer fee
$6, $8, $10 paid at retail
Goes into state fund
Display devices only
Imports RoHS
Implementation on track
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Did California Resolve the
Debate?
Electronics industry polarized
Environmental community too
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
State Legislation Introduced ‘04
Of 14 substantive introduced measures
7 Producer Responsibility
3 Consumer fees
1 Shared responsibility
3 Advisory committees
Several disposal bans
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Maine
Producer Responsibility
TVs, monitors and laptops
Municipalities provide collection
Manufacturers take responsibility for
own products from consolidation points
Implementation began in January ‘06
Washington
Mftr. takeback,
collection & recycling
plans or pay into TPO.
Minnesota
Vermont
2006 State Recycling Legislation
Task Force on CRTs &
computers; Landfill ban
July 2006.
New Hampshire
CANADA
Nebraska
MT
OR
Missouri
E-waste task force
report due 12/2006
ND
ID
Oklahoma
NV
WI
CA
NY
MI
CT
IL
CO
KS
IN
MD DE
WV
MO
AR
HI
AL
GA
LA
New Jersey
Louisiana
DEQ ongoing study on ewaste management
options for state.
1) Manufacturer takeback
CRTs, Computers
2) $10 ARF bill on CRT
products; reintroduced
TX
Recycling Task Force
ongoing; Initial
recommendations 5/ 06.
$10 ARF on TVs; mftr.
takeback for computers
FL
Delaware
MEXICO
Puerto Rico
Use unclaimed mftr.
rebates to fund statewide
recycling program
Mississippi
2008 landfill ban; state
agencies develop e-waste Producer Responsibility Bill
recycling plans
Kentucky
E-scrap Task Force recommendations to
legislators by Dec. 2006
Massachusetts
New York
SC
MS
Illinois
NC
TN
Requires municipalities
to manage e-waste;
Manufacturer takeback
for computers, TVs,
display monitors &
audio products
Manufacturer takeback
CRTs, Computers
Carryover from 2005
VA
KY
OK
NM
NJ
PA
OH
AZ
Utah
MA
RI
IA
UT
Establish statewide
recycling pilot if mftrs.
pay into fund
Landfill ban after 2007;
e-waste task force
SD
NE
Rhode Island
ME
VT
NH
MN
WY
E-waste task force
report due 12/2006
Mftr. takeback
Requires collection &
recycling plans for TVs,
monitors, & computers;
landfill ban in
(as of 02/10/06)
WA
Manufacturer takeback
using consolidation
facilities; covers all CE.
New Mexico
Manufacturer takeback
Requires collection &
recycling plans for TVs,
monitors, computers,
printers
South Carolina
ARF or 1st Seller Bill
Electronics/Computer
Task Force
Landfill ban
Recycling law activity
in 2005
Recycling law
adopted
California model ARF bill
reintroduced
Michigan
Task Force complete, DEQ
recommendations imminent
Washington Model
R
I
F
E
R
Producer responsibility
Legislation created default organization
TPO-like state agency
Structures infrastructure delivery
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Individual producers on own
Great Lakes Model
Consumer fee remitted by manufacturers
Register and report
Fee system with strong producer stake
Trends
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
No silver bullet yet found to bridge the divide
Manufacturers’ Coalition advocates for the ARF
HP advocates for Producer Responsibility
Regional initiatives gain some momentum
Great Lakes States, NE States
A notable trend toward Producer Responsibility
Easier to pass
Fewer local opponents (retailers)
Near-Term Prospects for the
EOL Debate
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
U.S. Congress
In 2005 two House Bills, one Senate Bill
One hearing
Congress / Administration will not act
States will, but with great contention
There is no will to compromise
Some winners / Some losers
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
And what about eco-design?
R
I
F
E
R
What is EPEAT?
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
The Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool
An environmental procurement tool designed to
help institutional purchasers in the public and
private sectors evaluate, compare and select
desktop computers, laptops and monitors based on
their environmental attributes.
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Environmental Performance
Categories
Environmentally Sensitive
Materials
Materials Selection
Design for End of Life
Product Longevity/Life Cycle Extension
Energy Conservation
End of Life Management
Corporate Performance
Packaging
R
I
F
E
R
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
Wayne Rifer
Rifer Environmental
Green Electronics Council
[email protected]
www.epeat.net