ATTENTION TURNS TO E-WASTE BILL IN CONGRESS AS NEPSI SPUTTERS

Industry’s support is based mainly for potential that bill holds for national solution to e-waste problem given its concern over proliferation of maze of legislative initiatives in states. “There are things in it [bill] that we can support such as the requirement for the EPA to study the quantities of computer waste being generated and that it could provide a national solution,” EIA Environmental Policy Dir. Heather Bowman said. However, industry has concerns about “arbitrary” recycling fee proposed in bill “without connecting it to real costs,” she said. Under legislation, grants program would be funded by fee of up to $10 on retail sales of computers. In addition to study of volume of e-waste being generated, EPA would be required to study export of computer waste. Environmental groups have criticized export of electronics waste to developing nations, especially in Asia, where proper and safe methods for handling toxics aren’t in place.

Legislation also should ensure that recycling fee could be applied fairly to all manufacturers and all types of sales, Bowman said. Spokeswoman for Thompson said fee would apply to Internet sales as well. Bowman said CE industry also wanted to make sure that recycling industry, “which can make the recycling infrastructure an economically viable and sustainable system,” also was involved. Industry felt that distribution of funds through EPA would create “unnecessary bureaucracy.” Bowman said: “We need to carefully review how the money should be distributed, who it needs to go to, what it’s going to be used for and how we can ensure that we are using it to create a sustainable, effective and efficient system that can be the basis for a viable electronics recycling infrastructure for the long term.”

Asked whether bill would address antitrust concerns raised by industry over front-end fee (fee included in price of product) proposed at NEPSI, Bowman said it did address issue because companies weren’t being asked to propose or agree on fee: “It’s my understanding that it would be a visible fee.” However, Dept. of Justice and antitrust attorneys will have to address all of industry’s concerns, she said. Industry welcomed Thompson’s involvement in issue, she said, because “we do think that a national approach is more reasoned and appropriate than state-by- state legislation that we have seen this past year.”

“I think this bill has drawn national attention and it is helpful,” Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) Dir. Scott Cassel said. Cassel, who represents states on NEPSI, is drawing up model state recycling legislation at urging of state agencies that privately express little hope agreement will emerge from NEPSI process this year. Thompson’s office has been in discussions with representatives of state agencies, Cassel said: “I would say there is general support for a national product stewardship legislation and there are certain suggestions we've made on the things to consider.” He declined to comment on features of bill, saying it would be inappropriate at time when PSI was involved in developing model legislation tailored for needs of state and local agencies.

Environmental groups, like industry, also have reservations over free structure, but for different reasons. Generalized fee structure doesn’t provide enough incentives for better performing companies, said Ted Smith of Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. Expressing happiness that “somebody in Congress is finally paying attention” to e-waste issue, he said any kind of recycling program that evolved had to reward companies that did good job in environmental design and performance: “It should try to move the bar upward rather than to treat everybody the same way, whether you are an environmental leader or environmental laggard.” Objective could be achieved through visible front-end fee that would distinguish between various attributes of product, he said. For example, 56” TV would have higher fee than 15” computer monitor, he said.

Another way is to reward companies that design greener products, as Europeans were doing, Smith said. Under that approach, govt. need not set front-end fee but rather would pick cost internalization approach and have companies figure out how much they wanted to charge at front end, he said. That way, companies able to reduce recycling costs would be able to charge less at front end. As for antitrust concerns raised by industry, he said he didn’t believe it was “significant, real” issue. Antitrust issues arose only when companies got together and created visible front-end fee, he said. But if they did it under cost internalization provision with 3rd party there would be no problem.

Smith said concern of most computer companies over free riders stemmed mainly from Dell’s sales model: “They are afraid that Dell could be a free rider because of their Internet sales model.” And that was big issue for companies in Cal. e-waste bills SB-1619 and SB-1523, he said, with Cal.-based companies such as Apple and HP contending that if front-end fee was collected only in retail stores, then Dell would become free rider. Amendment proposes to fix problem by making companies that fail to go along with front-end fee ineligible to bid on state equipment procurement. At our deadline, bills with significant changes in recycling fee and recycling targets passed Cal. Assembly and were awaiting reconciliation with Senate version.

GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN) said it will support bill, saying it proposes way to finance system for management of e-waste but “doesn’t do anything to fundamentally shift responsibility off government programs,” GRRN Program Dir. David Wood said. He said GRRN was working with Thompson and his staff to ensure that bill was expanded in next session to go beyond just CRTs and address issues such as design of products, “which a simple fee mechanism would not do much toward changing.” He said program with relatively small fee that funded EPA grant program wasn’t solution to e-waste problem. But, he said, whatever solution ultimately is reached will need funding mechanism, so financing system of sort proposed by Thompson was good start. Wood said: “But it needs to go beyond CRTs and needs to go beyond simply a government grants program. We all know what happens to money that goes into federal coffers. It’s not always enough and it’s not always used for the exact purposes for which it was intended.”

While welcoming another forum for discussing front-end finance system, local govt. officials expressed apprehensions about EPA-administered program. “That’s the part I'm not very fond of,” said Sego Jackson, principal planner for Snohomish County, Wash. Third-party and not govt. fund is ideal way to manage front-end system, said Jackson, who represents local govts. on NEPSI. “However, if that is the only approach that elected officials at the national level feel comfortable passing, then that would work, although it’s not the best design for the system.”