California Integrated Waste Management Board Contractor Report

1. California Integrated Waste Management BoardContractor Report Framework for EvaluatingEnd-of-Life Product Management Systems in California Presented by Heidi Sanborn July 10, 2007

2. Presentation Overview • Project Scope • Framework to Analyze Systems • Case Studies • Recommended System Elements • Implications for California • Stakeholder Comments • Summary

3. I.Project Scope Report Provides CIWMB • EOL System Evaluation Framework • Eight Case Studies Using Framework • Lessons Learned from Case-Studies • Recommended System Elements • Stakeholder Comments • Implications for California

4. Funding Mechanism (fee or tax) Funding Approach (voluntary or mandatory) Fee/Tax Collection Point (POM, POS, POD) Fund Consolidation Point Fund Oversight Fund Management Program Oversight Program Operations Framework should enable comparison of EOL Systems and provide a basis for meaningful dialogue II. Framework to Analyze Systems

5. 40 End-Of-Life Systems: Selected 8 Longevity – (1989 – 2007) Data Availability Product Types - all hazardous, 4 U-waste/1 paint Special Features e.g. Auto Battery 5 State/Provincial & 3 National 5 Mandatory & 3 Voluntary Fee Collected from POM(6)/ POS(2)/POD (0) Applied Framework to the 8 EOL Systems Present Data as Reported Applying the Framework:III. Case-Studies

6. Eight Selected EOL SystemsIII. Case Studies (cont.) • Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation • Product Care • Maine Thermostat Law • Maine E-Waste Law • California Automobile Battery Take-Back • California E-Waste Law (SB 20) • California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act • Agricultural Container Recycling Council

7. Funding Mechanism No taxes Visible vs. Invisible both fund Systems Funding Approach Voluntary has risks and mandatory “levels playing field” Fee Collection Point POM may be more efficient – fewer stakeholders Fund Consolidation Producers can consolidate funds, government consolidation of funds grow government size and related costs EOL Systems Trends/LessonsIII. Case Studies - Trends

8. EOL Systems Trends/LessonsIII. Case Studies – Trends (cont.) • Fund Oversight • Can be performed by government or producers, but should be transparent and accountable • Fund Management • Government and producers can successfully manage funds but government funds run risk of being “swept” for other purposes • Program Oversight • Government and producers can successfully oversee EOL program • Program Operations • Wide variety of stakeholders which vary with each product

9. Funding Mechanism - Fee Funding Approach - Mandatory Fee Collection Point – Manufacture Fund Consolidation – PRO or Individual Producer Fund Oversight – Government Fund Management - PRO or Individual Producer Program Oversight – Government Program Operations – Customized by product This Framework is recommended as the starting point for future discussions in designing EOL Systems. IV. Recommended System Elements

10. Considerations in Utilizing FrameworkLegislatively-Mandated Systems • Role of Government • Mandates participation – no “free-riders” • Performance based regulatory framework • Requires transparency and accountability • Planning for Program Evolution • Systems will evolve • Design flexibility into the System • Market Forces • Products with value will require less government involvement (e.g. lead-acid batteries) • Mutually Beneficial Partnerships • Stakeholder collaborations can lead to creative solutions

11. Phase IV. Implications for California • Request producers begin designing Program Operations • Offer support in convening stakeholders • Determine timeframe and milestones to achieve 100% collection goals • Establish baselines, formula to calculate collection rates, how to measure effectiveness

12. Phase IIV. Implications for California (cont.) • Draft regulatory framework • Adopt policies on desired role of government, producers, retailers, others • Communicate roles of DTSC and CIWMB for EOL Systems • Include EPR in state procurement • Consider banning sale of products on demonstration of successful collection System • Consider banning sale of products when banned from disposal if non-hazardous substitutes exist • Consider adoption of enforcement policies with adoption of EOL Systems • Hosting workshops to learn from experiences of other countries and EOL Systems • Continue to build CIWMB library and ensure staff access to conferences on EOL Systems

13. VI. Stakeholder Comments Comments:California Retailers Assoc.; Regional Council of Rural Counties; Clean Harbors; Waste Management; National Paint and Coatings Association; National Electronic Manufacturers Association (battery, lamp, TRC); Kinsbursky Brothers; Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers; California Conference of Environmental Health Directors*; Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation*. No Comments: IKEA; City of Los Angeles; Californians Against Waste; Product Stewardship Institute, California Refuse Removal Council. * Submitted after the deadline and were not incorporated into the report.

14. Is the Framework a Useful Tool?VI. Stakeholder Comments • Agree • NEMA Battery Group • Regional Council of Rural Counties • Clean Harbors • Disagree • NEMA Thermostat Recycling Corporation • No Response to the Question • National Paint and Coatings Association • California Retailers Association • Kinsbursky Brothers Inc. • Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers • Waste Management Inc. • NEMA Lamp Group • California Conference of Environmental Health Directors • Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation

15. Framework Recommendations VI. Stakeholder Comments Agreement • Fees • Fund Consolidation, Management and Oversight • Program Operations and Oversight Disagreement • Visible or Invisible Fee • Mandatory vs. Voluntary Ultimately, the consumer will always pay….

16. VII. Summary Report Provides • Analysis tool - framework • New information - case studies • “Language” for dialogue • Recommendations on next steps • Basis to begin discussions on EOL Systems