NEPSI to Fold Without National E-Waste Recycling Agreement
The CE industry and govt. agencies are bracing for an upsurge in electronics waste (e-waste) legislative activity in the states next year with the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) deciding to wrap up its activities this month. Created at the behest of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to come up with a national e-waste solution, NEPSI has come up empty after a 3-year dialog among industry, state and local govts. and environmental groups. When the EPA pulled out in Nov. 2003, it considerably weakened NEPSI and left it without a source of funding.
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.
Split largely between TV and computer manufacturers over the financing mechanism for a national recycling system, the industry was asked at the last full NEPSI meeting in Feb. to come up with a consensus proposal that would pave the way for an agreement on a national system. A group of mostly TV manufacturers along with IBM had taken the position that there should be a fee on products at the point of sale to pay for recycling. Others, mostly computer manufacturers led by majors such as Hewlett- Packard and Dell, opposed the fee model, insisting that fees wouldn’t go away and the recycling fund would be mismanaged by govts. They wanted companies to be responsible for collecting and recycling their own products.
NEPSI Coordinator Catherine Wilt, who serves as policy dir. for the Center for Clean Products & Technologies at the U. of Tenn., told us she will issue a final report by the end of Dec. that will detail “all the good information” that NEPSI had developed over the years. NEPSI has been going on without funding since the EPA withdrew, she said, but the talks were sustained by support from the stakeholders, she added. Although the process was coming to an end, Wilt said she would try to reconvene the group if the industry came up with a formal proposal even a couple of months after the final report was issued.
Such a consensus proposal appeared remote, judging by statements from industry sources. Asked whether he expected such an industry consensus to emerge anytime soon, David Isaacs, HP’s dir.-public policy, said: “We are continuing to work towards that but I'm not sure if we will be able to achieve that goal.” While NEPSI had been “very productive and useful,” he told us, “it probably makes sense to wind it down.” The dialog had covered the ground “we needed to and it’s unfortunate that we weren’t able to all agree to a single approach.”
Sensing a renewed push by states to pass legislation in the next session, companies belonging to both factions of the industry group are aggressively lobbying lawmakers, according to state govt. sources. Acknowledging the increased lobbying activity at the state level, Jason Linnell, EIA staff mgr. for environmental affairs, said it was a recognition that “you can’t ignore the state level while you are working on the federal solution.” A federal system would take some time to come about, he said, and until such time there would be “added pressure at the state level.” Some states were going to proceed with their own programs regardless of progress at the federal level, he added: “That’s why you see the companies engaged at the state level right now.”
For the states, NEPSI’s demise means they would look for “state solutions and regional solutions,” said Scott Cassel, dir. of the Mass-based Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) and representative of state govts. on NEPSI. “Currently, we are not expecting any national solutions.” Asked if he would have preferred NEPSI to continue, he said right now states need to put forth legislation in their own states and if possible regionally. “Only when we have multiple state solutions will manufacturers find it in their interest to hammer out their own solutions.” He said there would be elevated interest in state legislation because the chances of a national solution were all but nil.
“I think one needs to bring that thing [NEPSI] to a conclusion,” said Sego Jackson, principal planner for Snohomish County, Wash., and local govt. representative on NEPSI. If manufacturers do reach a compromise later, they could ask the stakeholders to come together to hear them out, he added. Jackson said he expected a lot of legislative activity in the states, with many states that had held back thinking a national solution was imminent joining the fray. “I would guess there would be a number of states looking to resolve the problem on a state-by- state basis as California and Maine had already done.”
Linnell said the EIA planned to send letters to all the stakeholders next week updating the “progress we had made and give them a draft outline of the model that we have been working on for the financing mechanism.” Companies haven’t reached consensus on the compromise model, he clarified. It would have a fee on a defined list of products and if companies like to control the funds stemming from the fee, they could do so after the EPA approval of their recycling plan. Asked if he expected a rise in state legislation with the failure to come up with a national plan, he said the 2 weren’t correlated, but “we do expect an increase [of legislation] at the state level.” At least 5 states -- including Ore., Wash., and Mich. -- had recommended study committees last year, he said, and they were expected to recommend legislation next year. States that had introduced bills in the last 4-5 years were expected to “keep going,” Linnell said.