STATES DRAWING UP MODEL E-WASTE LEGISLATION

State and local representatives blame industry for refusing to pursue front-end system after agreeing to explore model at March meeting, and instead bringing end-of-life fee system back to table. “We are looking at model legislation that could be used by state officials,” said Scott Cassel, dir. of Mass.-based Product Stewardship Institute (PSI). Model legislation that states are drawing up is based on front-end system, said Cassel, who represents state govts. “If there is no agreement nationally then we will see much more pressure for the states to consider legislation on their own,” he said. Asked whether failure to make progress at last month’s meeting had accelerated push for state legislation, Cassel said state and local environmental agencies had been interested in model for many months because they were asked for recommendations by state legislators. “And this effort is beginning now to assist these officials who have the need to recommend legislation in their states.”

Cassel declined to give names or number of states currently involved in developing model legislation. More than 18 states, including Cal., Fla., Mass., Minn., Mo., Ohio, Pa. and Wash., and 22 local govts. are members of PSI, as also is Northeast Waste Management Officials Assn. that represents 6 states. As many states as want to work with PSI are free to participate in process, he said. Nineteen states are considering legislation ranging from landfill bans on CRTs to mandatory take-back policies. Asked how he rated chances of an agreement at planned final NEPSI meeting in Sept., Cassel said states were fully committed to its process, but state agencies need to keep their options open: “The state and local representatives in the NEPSI dialog had until now stayed out of the legislative arena. These officials are now increasingly being asked for technical and advice and recommendations [for legislation] from legislators in their states who are concerned about management of electronics waste.” States and local govts. in NEPSI believed front-end system “made the most sense for the dialog, a future system and an agreement,” he said, but “what I now understand is that the manufacturers still are not convinced that a front-end system is viable.” And that’s what govt. and industry needed to work on, Cassel said. Govt. group also is considering “what they need to see” in order to have Sept. meeting -- “the conditions under which the September meeting will make sense and what happens if those conditions don’t exist”, he said.

Govts. want to see more commitment from industry, said Gary Cooper, dir. of consumer programs, Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection. Asked whether he felt industry had gone back on its agreement to pursue front-end system, he said: “Maybe there was some miscommunication as to what the industry meant then [March meeting].” Industry now was saying it had said it was interested only in exploring front-end system, Cooper said. States have begun to give thought to what happens if agreement doesn’t emerge at Sept. meeting, he said: “We have discussed model legislation and are beginning to work on the draft of such a legislation as a kind of backup if for some reason there is no agreement [at NEPSI].” As for industry’s efforts to get end-of-life fees back into negotiations, Cooper said there was “plenty of evidence that it is not necessarily effective as a system.” Example, he said, was bottle fee in which there was 70% recycling rate with front- end fee and only 30% rate with end-of-life fees. Asked whether he agreed with industry concerns over antitrust issues associated with front-end system, Cooper said: “Who better to address this than the industry themselves. They are the ones who have the antitrust lawyers.” Cost internalization was one way of dealing with such concerns, he said, and industry hasn’t “made a huge effort to define what the [antitrust] issues are and what exactly needs to be done.”

Fact that model state legislation is being considered is “indicator that many of the states and local governments that are participating do not feel that the industry is taking the NEPSI process seriously enough,” said Sego Jackson, principal planner for Snohomish County, Wash. State and local govts. entered NEPSI to try to come up with negotiated agreement, he said, and “we are taking a dim view of the progress being made. A lot of us feel that it would be inappropriate to miss another legislative session.” Jackson said that when he was contacted by aide of state senator last year for recommendations on legislation to deal with e-waste he had told staffer that nothing needed to be done. “See what the NEPSI process is doing,” he said he had told the staff: “That’s not going to be my answer this year.” There was some “backsliding” at June meeting, Jackson said, with some stakeholders seeking to bring up end-of-life system as possible solution. “Many of us believed that the NEPSI process from several meeting ago till the end would be focused on a front-end fee system.”