E-Recycling and International Export Issues

1. E-Recycling and International Export Issues

2. Legal/regulatory requirements Federal government not a player – no Federal law! Nearly half US states now have e-waste mandates New York City also pursuing e-waste mandate Over 50% of US population covered by e-waste laws U.S. System Drivers

3. 21 programs with some type of e-waste law Almost 167 million US residents or 55% of US population covered by a law (20 states plus New York City) Landfill disposal bans; no program per se NH, MA, and AR Current Regulatory Patchwork

4. True “Patchwork” of Approaches to common challenge How is the program funded? 1 Advanced Fee, 5 Types of Manufacturer Financing Which products are covered? 10 different sets of product lists Who can use the recycling system? 8 sets of “covered entities” Definitions, interpretations vary as well Highlights

5. Overview of States With Laws WI WA ME MN MA OR NH VT MI RI NJ CT MD IL IN CA WV NYC MO VA NC OK AR TX States With Producer Responsibility Laws States With ARF (Consumer Fees) Laws States With Landfill Disposal Fee States With Disposal Ban/No E-Waste Law

7. Types of Financing WI WA ME ARF- Electronic Waste Recycling Fee, assessed on the sale of covered electronic products FEE - Manufacturer Annual Registration Fees (can be significantly reduced by establishing an approved take-back program) SHARE- Manufacturers must finance a program to collect & recycle their brand’s share of covered products, either collectively or independently (LBS. SOLD Manufacturer pays registration fee and for collection and recycling of covered electronic devices based on their yearly sales to households NYC MN OR MI CT RI NJ MD IN IL CA WV VA MO NC OK HI TX RETURNS 1 - Manufacturers must develop and implement their own recycling programs for their own returned products (TX requires program to collect from consumers, NC requires program to collect from collectors). RETURNS 2 - Manufacturers pay for transportation and recycling of their own branded products collected by others plus a pro rata share of all orphan products

8. Advance fee came first (CA, 2003) Producer responsibility returns-based programs TVs and IT products treated the same (ME, 2004) More recently IT products returns-based financing, TVs market share-based financing Share-based programs (WA 2006, OR 2007) Market share and/or return share basis Sales-based obligation (MN 2007, WI 2009) Simple take-back obligation (TX 2007) Many, many variations since…. Financing Evolution?

9. Product Scope By State Hawaii Desktops, laptops, computer monitors over 9 inch and TVs over 9 inch Desktops, laptops, printers, TVs (over 7 inch) Monitors (over 7 inch) Desktops, Laptops (over 4 inch), TVs (over 4 inch), Monitors (over 4 inch) Laptops, TVs (over 9 inch), Monitors (over 9 inch) Desktops, Laptops, TVs (over 4 inch), Monitors (over 4 inch) TVs with exclusions (over 4 inch), Monitors (over 4 inch), Laptops (over 4 inch) TVs (over 4 inch), Monitors (over 4 inch), Laptops (over 4 inch) Desktops, laptops, computer monitors, printers, and TVs Desktops, laptops, computer monitors, printers, keyboards, mice, digital music players, and TVs Rhode Island NYC *Product scope for MD and MN includes products triggering a manufacturer obligation to participate in the program. Desktops, monitors, laptops TVs, Desktops, monitors, laptops, keyboard, mice, and other peripheral equipment (excluding printers)

10. Adding Covered EntitiesOur Patchwork Quilt Rhode Island NYC Hawaii -Households -Small Businesses -Public Schools Households Only -Households -Small Business -Non-Profits -Any Entity w/ Fewer Than 7 Devices -Households -Small Gov’t -Small Business -School Districts -Charities Households & Schools Consumers Only (Who Use Computer Equipment for Home or Home Business Use) Households Small Business with fewer than 7 employees Any Entity

11. States With E-Waste Bills In 2009 Legislature VT WI* NY MA PA IA NV** NE IN* KY AZ SC *Passed ** Passed Study Bill

12. Pending & Enacted Legislation Map WA ME MN NYC OR VT NY WI MA MI PA IA RI NJ CT NV NE IN MD IL CA WV MO VA KY NC AZ OK SC TX HI Enacted (Bills Passed) Pending (Bills Introduced)

13. Recycler Participation WI WA ME MN OR MI NJ RI CT MD IN IL NYC WV CA MO VA NC OK TX State Approval, Unlimited State Approval, Limited Default Program or Limited Manufacturer All Manufacturers/Groups of Manufacturers, Unlimited

14. State patchwork to grow Real harmonization and coordination unlikely soon Ultimate federal government role a big unknown Some minor legislative activity in Congress Research and development Controlling export of certain used electronics in response to NGO/media highlights of unsafe recycling practices in developing countries Politicians unlikely to act without more industry/government consensus Consolidation of system operations across states likely Future Developments

15. The Global E-Waste Patchwork

16. Three Realities E-waste (discarded electronic products) is generated and managed globally International laws control, or attempt to control, trans-boundary movement of some e-waste Governments are trying many different methods to capture and recycle e-waste within their jurisdictions

17. E-Waste is Everywhere Electronic products have revolutionized the way humans work, play and communicate Ubiquitous in developed world Deep penetration in developing world And wherever electronics are used, e-waste is generated

18. E-Waste Goes Everywhere International trade in used electronic equipment Formal channels Common in developed world, but also as downstream processors in developing countries Informal channels Inherently damaging to health, environment Focus of NGOs Specialization in downstream processing means downstream flows must be global CRT glass-to-glass recycling only done in Asia now

19. International RulesOECD Import/Export Controls 30 OECD countries – mostly developed OECD control system Covers recovery (recycling) only & facilitates trade Notice & consent system, but more streamlined than Basel Allows for tacit consent & pre-approved facilities Some difference in lists of hazardous wastes from Basel – more risk-based OECD system is sub-agreement under Basel To date, only CRTs have moved as hazardous waste under OECD controls. Other materials (i.e., circuit boards) continue to move as commodities

20. International RulesBasel Convention 172 countries are parties (but not U.S.) Intended to prevent dumping of hazardous waste in developing countries Requires written notification & consent of countries of export, import & transit Non-OECD countries cannot legally accept hazardous wastes from U.S. without bilateral

21. Basel Convention Basel definition of “hazardous waste” differs significantly from U.S. Rules For electronics, Basel applicability is often unclear Shipments for repair/refurbishment Rules of importing & transit countries vary

22. Patchwork of Laws United States No federal requirements 20 state laws plus New York City 6 types of financing models 11 different sets of product lists Laws require service to 8 sets of covered entities (e.g., households only, all generators, etc.) Canada Regulations in place in 5 provinces plus 3 more provinces within the next 6 months Harmonization effort underway on recycling standards, reuse policies, and financing methodologies

23. Patchwork of Laws (cont) Europe Study published in 2006 - Where Did WEEE Go Wrong in Europe (Magalini, Huisman, Marinelli, and Stevels) Revision of WEEE Directive Underway Collection target being reviewed Illegal export under intense scrutiny EU-wide recycling standards? China WEEE under development Effective January 2011

24. Patchwork of Laws (cont) Japan Driven mostly by need to conserve landfill space Consumers pay recycling fee at point of disposal Implemented by 2 large manufacturer conglomerates Policies also moving forward in other Asian countries, Latin America, Africa

25. Thank You