STATE, LOCAL OFFICIALS SEE SURGE OF E-WASTE BILLS

Contrary to what state and local officials say in private, CE industry is optimistic of reaching national agreement, EIA Environmental Policy Dir. Heather Bowman said. She expressed hope states also would have confidence in national solution and would “not try to do something [legislation] that could harm these efforts.” Reason for surge of state bills in last 2 years is emergence of electronics recycling as important issue for industry and public, she said. Bowman said many of bills failed because of timing. When stakeholders were working for national solution, it wasn’t appropriate to have state-by-state approach for issue that was complex and affected entire nation, she said, and there was awareness that it was something to be dealt with on national basis.

There will be tremendous pressure from local govts. for e- waste laws in next legislative session, said Sego Jackson, principal planner of Snohomish County, Wash., and local govt. representative on NEPSI. Despite being nascent issue, many bills were introduced in states in last 2 years because of concern about environmental impacts of e-waste as well as financial impact on their collection and recycling. State and local agencies hadn’t pursued legislation, Jackson said, and most of initiatives came from citizens’ groups and legislators themselves. Many bills failed because e-waste recycling was relatively new subject, he said, but as more states such as Cal. and Mass. became actively engaged in issue, “you will see not only an increase in the amount of legislation but also more likelihood that these bills will pass.” Some of bills are “kind of first-timers” that haven’t been structured properly because of lack of experience, Jackson said. As more experience is gained across the country, he said, bills will be of higher quality when they are produced: “There will probably be a new generation of bills that come about in the next year or 2 that are much more sophisticated in their first draft.”

State and local officials associated with NEPSI have put all their attention on national dialog and haven’t focused on legislative agenda in states, said Scott Cassel, dir. of Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) and representative of states on NEPSI. That was in contrast to active lobbying by nongovernmental organizations such as environmental groups and industry participants in NEPSI dialog, he said: “Our hope was that we would not have to go through a legislative route.” But, because of “slow pace” of NEPSI dialog, state and local officials have asked PSI to develop model state legislation that it will make available to states “interested in promoting a state-by- state approach to product stewardship.” State legislative initiatives have been delayed or held up for national dialog, Cassel said, but with NEPSI not moving forward in time frame expected by state and local agencies, they had asked PSI to take more active role in process, he said.

Model legislation PSI is drafting would give bills in states better chance of succeeding, Cassel said. Electronics wasn’t on agenda 2 years ago, he said, but now 20 states are working through PSI to get model laws drafted. However, states want PSI to continue to negotiate on NEPSI and “our hope is that we can still develop some cooperative solution.” But they wanted that “in case a solution isn’t forthcoming there will be legislative avenues to pursue.” Because NEPSI is open-ended there is no deadline for agreement, Cassel said, and “without some kind of a deadline it is very difficult to move parties with disparate interests toward a solution.”

Passage of Cal. legislation sends clear message to other states that they too could adopt front-end fees to tackle problem of e-waste, said Mark Murray, exec. dir. of Californians Against Waste (CAW), which was one of active proponents of legislation. Saying group didn’t have any inkling about Gov. Davis’s mind on signing legislation, he said that in election year public support rather than any specific policy issues would determine outcome. Davis has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto legislation, he said. Industry backs increased recycling but “we do not believe that this [Cal.] bill furthers that goal,” EIA’s Bowman said: “The [$10 front-end] fee is not applied in a fair way and the policy and process that the bill went through was basically just horrendous.” Unless fees are related to actual costs of recycling it can’t be efficient system, she said: “The only thing EIA and its members can support is something that applies fairly to all types of sales and all types of manufacturers, is on a national basis and is effective and efficient.”

Passage of Cal. bill shows other states that e-waste is problem that’s worthy of their serious efforts to resolve, Jackson said: “And those that are being afraid of being the first through the door won’t have that concern now.” Referring to lack of action in his state (Wash.) where waste problem exists, he said another impact of Cal. bill was that legislators in other states such as his would be “concerned about being left behind. I think it will up the interest.” Cal. measure is first electronics products stewardship legislation to go to governor for signature, Cassel. He said his PSI had looked at Cal. legislation and other models and “we will be putting out [model legislation] with a few different options realizing that states are not all alike and they have different preferences.” PSI expects to bring out model legislation in fall, in time for legislative agendas of state and local agencies, he said.

Following are among bills active in states: (1) H-4716 in Mass. Measure says no CRT-containing product may be sold or distributed for promotional purposes until manufacturers implement collection plan approved by Dept. of Environmental Protection. If targeted 95% recovery rate isn’t achieved by year after enactment, manufacturers should provide alternative plan to boost recycling. (2) A-607 in N.J. that passed Assembly and is in Senate Environment Committee. Manufacturers would be required to work with N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection to create education packages on disposal of electronic products. (3) A- 10146 in N.Y. House measure would direct Dept. of Environmental Conservation to develop electronic equipment recycling program in consultation with local govts. and businesses. It would ban CRTs in mixed solid waste facilities as of Jan. 2005, and manufacturers voluntarily could accept equipment for recycling. (4) S-1255 and companion H-1565 in N.C.. They would impose privilege tax (state sales tax) on retailers for each new CRT- containing equipment sold and excise tax (state use tax) on new equipment purchased from outside state. Rate for both taxes would be $10. CRTs would be banned from landfills, and tax proceeds would go to electronics recycling account.