1. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Solutions to the Challenge of Electronic Waste Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Green Electronics Council wrifer@concentric.net AIChE July 2006

2. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Contents 1 Costs and Impacts of E-Waste Management 2Status of a national solution 3Options for state legislation 4Prognosis

3. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL The U.S. E-Waste Challenge  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

4. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL EOL Electronic Products A New Kind of Garbage  The dilemma E-waste is not readily compatible with current waste management technologies  Technical wastes Waste authorities have responsibility, but lack knowledge and control

5. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Toxics in Electronics  Toxics Lead, cadmium, mercury & chromium Brominated flame-retardants & PVC  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

6. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Exporting Harm Video by Basel Action Network (BAN) & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), February ‘02  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

7. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL 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.

8. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL The Goal  A single national solution With consistent standards nationwide Providing economies of scale And allowing local service variations  Role of state action To incubate solutions To drive national action To provide interim services

9. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL The National EOL Debate: National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) Europe legislates U.S. negotiates

10. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL The NEPSI Process  Began June ‘01 – 3+ years  Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue 15 manufacturers 15 state, local & federal governments 18 ‘others’ – recyclers, NGOs, academics, retailers, etc.

11. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Positions at the Starting-Line  Government Not government’s responsibility To shift costs  NGOs Producer responsibility as design driver Waste diversion  Manufacturers Traditional model of waste management Last user or government pays

12. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL The NEPSI Outcome  A system that could work  No effective agreement

13. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL The System that Could Work Hybrid Financing  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

14. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL The NEPSI Product Scope  Computer systems (CPUs, monitors, keyboards, etc.)  Computer peripherals (printers, scanners)  Televisions  From residents and small businesses

15. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Fee Remitter Consumer User @ End of Product Life Retailer Local Recycler Municipality Mail-Back Remanufacturer Reuse Organization Recycler TPO Assurance of Environmentally- Sound Processing MoneyMoney ProductProduct Consolidation, processing contractors Payment for product collected Product can flow direct to processor

16. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL The Fundamental Divide Both industry & environmental advocates 1 Visible (consumer) fee (ARF) Financial Responsibility Obligation based on market share Collective implementation 2Producer (Manufacturer) Responsibility Mandated responsibility to recycle share of product Obligation based on returned share Individual cost internalization

17. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Industry Dynamics  Roughly, big vs. small  Positions HP, DellFavor PR CE industry, IBM, AppleFavor ARF White Box (~30%)?

18. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL A Scan of Legislative Trends State Legislation Introduced ‘03 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

19. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL One Passed California SB 20  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

20. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Did California Resolve the Debate?  Electronics industry polarized  Environmental community too 

21. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL State Legislation Introduced ‘04 Of 14 substantive introduced measures  7 Producer Responsibility  3 Consumer fees  1 Shared responsibility  3 Advisory committees  Several disposal bans

22. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Maine  Producer Responsibility  TVs, monitors and laptops  Municipalities provide collection  Manufacturers take responsibility for own products from consolidation points  Implementation began in January ‘06

23. Delaware New Jersey New York New Hampshire Rhode Island Massachusetts 2006 State Recycling Legislation CA OHIL KY TN NC SC FL TX WA NY NJ GA MO AZ UT NV CO CT DE ID IA VA IN MA AR ME AL OR KS MN MS MT NM ND SD VT NH LA PA WY NE OK HI Puerto Rico CANADA WV MEXICO WI MI RI Minnesota Producer Responsibility BillARF or 1 st Seller Bill Manufacturer takeback CRTs, Computers Carryover from 2005 Task Force on CRTs & computers; Landfill ban July 2006. MD (as of 02/10/06) Vermont Manufacturer takeback Requires collection & recycling plans for TVs, monitors, computers, printers Electronics/Computer Task Force Washington Mftr. takeback, collection & recycling plans or pay into TPO. Landfill ban Illinois Requires municipalities to manage e-waste; Manufacturer takeback for computers, TVs, display monitors & audio products Mftr. takeback Requires collection & recycling plans for TVs, monitors, & computers; landfill ban in Recycling Task Force ongoing; Initial recommendations 5/ 06. E-scrap Task Force - recommendations to legislators by Dec. 2006 Kentucky South Carolina Task Force complete, DEQ recommendations imminent DEQ ongoing study on e- waste management options for state. 1) Manufacturer takeback CRTs, Computers 2) $10 ARF bill on CRT products; reintroduced Recycling law activity in 2005 Recycling law adopted Mississippi 2008 landfill ban; state agencies develop e-waste recycling plans Nebraska Manufacturer takeback using consolidation facilities; covers all CE. $10 ARF on TVs; mftr. takeback for computers Use unclaimed mftr. rebates to fund statewide recycling program New Mexico Louisiana Oklahoma Michigan California model ARF bill reintroduced Establish statewide recycling pilot if mftrs. pay into fund E-waste task force report due 12/2006 Utah Landfill ban after 2007; e-waste task force Missouri E-waste task force report due 12/2006

24. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Washington Model  Producer responsibility  Legislation created default organization TPO-like state agency Structures infrastructure delivery  Individual producers on own Great Lakes Model  Consumer fee remitted by manufacturers Register and report  Fee system with strong producer stake

25. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Trends  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)

26. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Near-Term Prospects for the EOL Debate  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

27. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL And what about eco-design?

28. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL What is EPEAT? 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.

29. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL 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

30. RIFER ENVIRONMENTALRIFER ENVIRONMENTAL Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Green Electronics Council Wayne Rifer Rifer Environmental Green Electronics Council wrifer@concentric.net www.epeat.net