Overview of Electronics Recycling Systems and Policies Jason Linnell Executive Director, NCER Waste Expo 2007

Overview NCER BackgroundNCER Background State Responses to ChallengeState Responses to Challenge –Washington Law and Implementation State Activity 2007State Activity 2007 Federal ActivityFederal 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 501c3 Located in Parkersburg, WV area (Davisville) Located in Parkersburg, WV area (Davisville)  Polymer Tech Park Dedicated to the development and enhancement of a national infrastructure for the recycling of used electronics in the U.S. through: Mission: Dedicated to the development and enhancement of a national infrastructure for the 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 2006  4 th 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]

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 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

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 WA Standard and Independent Plans

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 oME 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  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) Visit us on the web: