Federal E-Waste Programs

1. Federal E-Waste Programs Bill Frick Van Ness Feldman Washington, DC

2. Overview • Challenges facing Federal Government • Programs undertaken • Collaboration with Federal, State, Local governments as well as Industry Groups • Future Initiatives

3. Regulating the Consumer • Historically a challenge • Efforts on E-Waste reflect need for different incentives than command and control • Regulations to date: • Mercury • CRT’s

4. Mercury Rule regulates highly toxic material in a “streamlined” way to encourage sound collection and proper management Universal Waste designation for hazardous wastes from wide variety of establishments Large number of generators/small quantities Limited risk during accumulation and transport Lighter regulation will increase likelihood waste diverts from municipal disposal to recycle, treatment or hazardous waste disposal facilities Less onerous recordkeeping; encourages central location collection to encourage small generators Balancing Risk against Encouraging Proper Disposal

5. CRT Rule • Does not follow mercury rule with universal waste designation • concerned for stigma aspect • Provides for exclusions from definition of HW • unless disposed • unless speculatively accumulated • Broken glass from tubes is excluded as long as intended for recycle, meets certain requirements, and not speculatively accumulated. • Individual consumers/businesses are not covered; only those who gather them for reuse or recycle.

6. EPA concerns • “We agree that…in the case of CRT’s, this classification [universal waste] could discourage recycling. We are concerned that nonprofit organizations might refuse to help collect used CRT’s because of this hazardous waste classification. Without their participation, CRT recycling would be greatly inhibited.” 71 FR 42920

7. Not Complicating Local Efforts • …[T]oday’s conditional exclusion will foster the equally important goal of collecting CRT’s, conserving resources, and minimizing negative impacts on the environment. We anticipate that it will lead to increased recycling and less disposal of CRT’s, including those from households and CESQGs, because municipalities and other entities can consolidate CRT’s from all sources more easily than if some CRT’s were classified as hazardous wastes.” 71 FR 42941

8. Opportunities for all levels of Govt and Industry • States are serving as laboratory, testing financial solutions as well as collection incentives; many would like consistent federal solution but still acting in absence of one, which is not likely forthcoming • Strong support for economic system but inability to agree on system; EPA reluctant to embrace one given lack of consensus • Federal government major consumer and shifting buying practices to minimize need for recycle-EPeat; not mandatory like Energy Star

9. EPA Contribution • Light handed regulation • Facilitate among all parties; pressure Federal consumers • No major regulations scheduled in Reg. Agenda • Strategic Plan focuses on incentives and voluntary programs rather than command and control. • Resource Conservation Challenge provides umbrella structure for various voluntary and incentive driven programs

10. Conclusions • EPA under pressure to be more aggressive, with mandatory federal requirements to change purchasing habits and to support programs that will fund the recycling/proper handling and disposal; GAO report and bills in Congress • No indication they will change their approach; want to be forced into it; • Regulatory decisions, if any, will be dominated by not undercutting incentives for recycle/avoiding improper disposal