Overview of Electronics Recycling

Systems and Policies

Jason LinnellExecutive Director,

NCER

Waste Expo 2007

Overview

• NCER BackgroundNCER Background• State Responses to ChallengeState Responses to Challenge

– Washington Law and Washington Law and ImplementationImplementation

• State Activity 2007State Activity 2007• Federal Activity Federal Activity • Trends/OutlookTrends/Outlook

National Center for Electronics Recycling

1) The coordination of initiatives targeting the recycling of used electronics in the United States

1) Participation in pilot projects to advance and encourage electronics recycling

2) The development of programs that reduce the burden of government through private management of electronics recycling systems

• Non-profit 501c3Non-profit 501c3• Located in Parkersburg, WV area (Davisville)Located in Parkersburg, WV area (Davisville)

Polymer Tech Park

Mission: Dedicated to the development and Dedicated to the development and enhancement of a national infrastructure for the enhancement of a national infrastructure for the recycling of used electronics in the U.S. through:recycling of used electronics in the U.S. through:

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 20064th major state electronics recycling program Different than other 3 in significant ways

• Producer Responsibility with defaultManufacturer 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]

• 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 Product Scope

Washington LawImplementation

• Manufacturer Administration FeeRegistration and Fee required 1/5/07 for

sale or penalty to manufacturer & retailerBased 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 BoardBoard 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 WMMFAPublic 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

• 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 notregistered and part of an approved plan

• Violation for both retailer and manufacturer

WA Standard and Independent Plans

Washington Return Share

• Alternative approach to complete brand count as in MaineDetermine % for each manufacturer based

on random samples throughout yearProcessors may be performing sampling

• Return Share SamplingNCER Project for Dept of Ecology, with

statisticiansSampling 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 quasi-government 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 theState-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 bills8 states already rejected bills (HI, IN, KY, MS,

NM, RI, UT, VA)

• Types of BillsAdvanced recovery fees – SC, NJ, MAProducer 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 – MIExisting law changes – CATax 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, NCERPhone: (304) 699-1008jlinnell@electronicsrecycling.org

Visit us on the web:www.ncerwv.org