INDUSTRY WORKING TO FEND OFF CE WASTE MANDATES
Legislation to mandate management of end-of-life consumer electronic products hasn’t gained traction in states because of expectations raised by govt.-industry initiative to develop voluntary program to dispose of products in environmentally aware way, according to state regulators. But that could change if sustainable models for management of waste electronics aren’t evolved soon, state officials said. About 25 states and local govts. are involved in National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) that’s seeking to reach agreement to avoid patchwork of state and local regulations.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
After its first meeting in June, NEPSI has come to some general understanding of scope of products to be included and has narrowed options for management of electronic waste, said Scott Cassel , dir. of Mass.-based Product Stewardship Institute. With emphasis on increasing collection, reuse and recycling and development of sustainable financial system to support it, 3 basic approaches have emerged, he said: (1) Mostly govt.-funded program. (2) Back-end fees (customer paying for collection and recycling of used product). (3) Front-end fees (costs of collection and recycling included in purchase price of product).
Govt. representatives have expressed strong preference for front-end option, Cassel said, virtually rejecting govt. funding as unsustainable financial model. General view is that it should be shared responsibility, with govt. representatives believing consumers would have to bear any increase in price of products as result of inclusion of costs in purchase price. There also were suggestions that manufacturers be provided incentives to redesign products to reduce pollutants. Pollutants being looked at are lead in radiation shields of CRTs in computers and TVs and lead soldering and other metals such as chromium and cadmium. Another concern is brominated flame retardants in plastic casings that are used to reduce risk of fire but are environmental pollutants when disposed. Next NEPSI meeting, scheduled for Nov. 8 in Boston, is expected to make further progress on narrowing voluntary programs, officials said.
So far no state has mandated take-back of end-of-life consumer electronics products, but some, such as Cal., Mass. and S.C., ban CRTs in landfills. Cal., Mass., Minn. and Ore. are looking at take-back regulations that might affect manufacturers, said Gary Davis of Energy & Environmental Resource Center of U. of Tenn.
With limited resources, govts. can’t pay for management of used electronics, said James Hull, dir.-solid waste management in Mo. Hull, who represents Mo. in NEPSI, expressed preference for manufacturers’ paying for handling and recycling products. He said states were looking for some type of voluntary scheme by industry to prevent need for legislation. Among options being examined were advance fees (front-end fees) or drop-off fees, he said.
States and local govts. were facing growing pressure for management of electronic waste as their volume increases, said Chris Taylor, solid waste mgr. of Ore. Dept. of Environmental Quality. Like counterparts in other states, he said state budgets were declining and legislatures were seeking to cut spending. State and localities don’t think govt.-funded programs are viable option, he said, partly because current recycling programs aren’t suited for electronics. However, govts. wouldn’t object to use of existing infrastructure if it suited electronics collection and recycling, he said.
Taylor said basic premise of NEPSI was that it didn’t make sense from economic standpoint and industry perspective for every state and local govt. to propose legislation. What is needed is comprehensive and uniform regulatory solution, taking into account varied recycling programs in states, he said. However, some of models being looked at may require enabling legislation, Taylor said. One of major concerns of both industry and govts. that could be addressed only by legislation was free-rider problem, and both industry and govts. had stake in addressing that problem, he said. Industry also had raised antitrust concerns, he said.
Industry generally has accepted need for some type of program because “most of them are global players,” Taylor said, and they knew that regulations were “fait accompli” in Europe: “What we are saying is that you come to the table now and work out some sort of agreement, something that you can support.” Many states, including Mass. and Ore., have introduced legislation to regulate end-of-life electronics, but they hadn’t moved because states were seeking to carve out voluntary program, he said. If NEPSI initiative failed, things could change, and bill that mandated even product design couldn’t be ruled out, he said.