2955-36th
Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98144
206-723-0528
(phone); 206-723-2452 (fax)
fullcircle@nwnexus.com (e-mail)
http://www.productstewardship.net/
Electronic wastes are a significant and growing problem for local governments that currently bear the burden of managing them. These products are toxic: they contain lead, mercury, cadmium, brominated flame retardants, and other hazardous substances. They are difficult to recycle because they contain these toxic chemicals and because they aren’t designed to be easy to take apart. And the rapid improvements in technology mean that these products become obsolete very quickly. Please note that the statistics below do not include cell phones.
There’s a lot of it.
q In 2002, households in Washington State generated an estimated 1.4 million obsolete computers, monitors, and televisions.
q Small Quantity Generators[1] in Washington generated approximately an additional 288,000 obsolete computers and monitors in 2002.
q By 2010, residents and Small Quantity Generators in Washington will generate approximately 2 million units annually.
People are stockpiling it.
q Citizens tend to stockpile obsolete electronics either because they know they are toxic or because they paid a lot of money for them in the first place. Currently, Washington residents have stockpiled an estimated 1.9 million computers, monitors, and televisions. By 2010, that number will grow to an estimated 5.5 million units.[2]
It’s toxic.
q Each cathode ray tube in a computer monitor or TV contains 3-8 pounds of lead. Assuming that each of the monitors and TVs that became obsolete in 2002 contained 3 pounds of lead, Washington residents and Small Quantity Generators generated 1,584 tons of lead in 2002.
Today, it’s expensive to recycle.
q Because manufacturers are not required to design products that are easy to recycle, e-waste contains lots of toxic materials and is hard to take apart.
q The lack of collection infrastructure and the complexity of recycling e-waste means little e-waste is recycled, driving costs up. As a result, local governments must charge end-of-life fees to handle e-waste. Snohomish County charges $10 per central processing unit, $14 per monitor, and $20 per standard TV to recycle e-waste – and they’re losing money on the TVs. Statewide, that translates at least $25 million to recycle the e-waste that residents and Small Quantity Generators produced in 2002 alone.
q But there’s more e-waste out there. Extrapolating the results of a recent e-waste collection event that gathered electronics from school districts in Snohomish County reveals that it would cost governments over $750,000 to recycle existing e-waste from every school district in Washington. Large Quantity Generators[3] also produce e-waste, but are not allowed to dispose of it in the landfills. These businesses currently have few e-waste options.
This bill requires manufacturers of electronic products to plan for and finance collection, transportation, reuse, and recycling of obsolete computers and peripherals, televisions, and cell phones. It also requires them to phase out the use of lead, mercury, beryllium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, brominated flame retardants, and polyvinyl chloride in electronic products by 2007. This bill capitalizes on the business skills of industry and gives manufacturers the flexibility to design the most effective system possible. .
There’s a lot of it and people are stockpiling it.
Manufacturers must design and finance a system to collect, transport, and process obsolete computers, televisions, and cell phones. The bill sets a target recycling rate of 65% by 2005. In order to meet these targets, manufacturers must develop a system that consumers find convenient, thereby diverting e-waste from disposal. Because manufacturers also must recycle e-waste manufactured by companies that are out of business, consumers and businesses can get rid of their stockpiled e-waste.
It’s toxic.
The bill
requires manufacturers to phase out the use of lead, mercury, beryllium,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, brominated flame retardants, and polyvinyl
chloride in electronic products by 2007.
However, because manufacturers also have to pay to recycle e-waste, they
have a strong incentive to phase these toxic items – which cost more to recycle
or dispose safely – long before 2007.
It’s expensive
to recycle.
The reasons e-waste is expensive to recycle now are several: there’s no infrastructure, it’s hard to take apart, it contains toxic substances, and very little of it is recycled. Therefore, end-of-life fees to recycle e-waste have to be substantial. This bill neatly addresses all of these issues: manufacturers would have to design and finance a collection infrastructure, paying for recycling gives manufacturers a strong incentive to make e-waste less toxic and easier to disassemble, and volumes would increase dramatically. Also, the bill specifies that if necessary, manufacturers must use a front-end fee, added to the purchase price of new electronics, rather than an end-of-life fee. Sales of new electronics occur at a brisk pace, whereas currently recycling does not. As a result, manufacturers would enjoy economies of scale that would significantly decrease the necessary front-end fee. Early projections show that this front-end fee could range between $3 and $10 per unit.
It is important to note that manufacturers can set up any system that meets their obligations. However, it is useful to outline a few possible scenarios.
Reverse Distribution is basically running the distribution system, which gets new electronic products to customers, backwards. Manufacturers who distribute through the mail or UPS could take back their products in similar fashion. Manufacturers who sell through retailers could arrange for retailers to accept old products and send them back to the manufacturers’ distribution centers for consolidation and recycling. Large screen TVs that must be delivered to the home in a truck can also be removed from the home by that same truck. Reverse distribution makes it “as easy to recycle a computer as it is to purchase one.”
Another scenario that has been done with other products, as well as with electronics in other countries, involves a few, many, or all manufacturers forming a “Third Party Organization” (TPO) to fulfill their obligations. The TPO receives funds from the manufacturers to pay for the required collection, transportation and processing/recycling services. Most likely, the TPO would use a competitive bid process to select a number of processors in the state to transport and process their products.
One easy way for the manufacturers to get their material collected is to offer a small payment for the material to the collector. This payment would encourage a great diversity of types of collectors and collection locations. The payment could be as little as $.10 per pound ($3.00 for a standard computer monitor) and offset costs of collection to some collectors. The manufacturer (potentially through the TPO) would reimburse the approved processors for paying out this fee to collectors. This system is very much like commodity payments that are made to purchase cardboard, scrap steel, or aluminum cans for recycling.
Individual manufacturers or groups of manufacturers (or the TPO) could contract with specific businesses or non-profits to provide the collection service. For instance, the manufacturers could contract with existing garbage and recycling haulers to provide curbside or drop off collection within their franchise territories. Or they could contract with Goodwill, Salvation Army, and other charities with drop boxes, facilities and storefronts to provide collection services.
Currently manufacturers have responsibility for their products’ use. There are consumer protection laws that require manufacturer responsibility for ensuring that their products do what they say they’ll do, and consumer safety laws that require manufacturers to produce products that are safe for consumers to use.
But manufacturers are not responsible for the end-life of their product; that becomes the consumers’ responsibility. This means products are designed without consideration of the costs or practicalities of disposal or recycling.
Currently, these disposal and recycling costs are externalities. Manufacturers have shown that they are capable of internalizing costs such as worker safety or cleaning up effluent and emissions. They are capable of internalizing the cost of recycling their products.
q Manufacturers are responsible for consumer
safety during the products’ use, and are also responsible to ensure that their
product does what they say it will do.
q Manufacturers are NOT responsible for the
end-life of their product, and consequently products are not designed with
these costs and risks in mind.
q Manufacturers have shown that they are capable of internalizing externalities.
This question has several facets, addressed below.
E-waste contains toxic substances; most waste handled by local governments does not. Municipal solid waste disposal systems are designed to handle massive quantities of co-mingled waste. This system is not designed to handle large quantities of hazardous substances, which pose risks to worker safety as well as the environment.
Also, Washington residents and businesses generate a lot of e-waste. Recent rough estimates of e-waste generation in Washington indicate that in 2002, residents and businesses generated almost 1.7 million obsolete televisions and computers. By 2005, Washington residents and businesses will generate 1.85 million units annually.[4]
Consumers tend to treat e-waste differently from other types of waste. Many residents and businesses stockpile e-waste rather than throwing it in the garbage, either because they know the products are hazardous or because they sense that the products still hold value – after all, the products are expensive. Recent rough estimates show that Washington residents have stockpiled about 1.9 million televisions and monitors already. This number will grow to 3.3 million units by 2005, and to 5.5 million units by 2010.
q
These electronic
wastes contain toxic substances.
Municipal solid waste systems are designed for non-toxic wastes.
q
There is lots of
it. Washington residents and businesses
generated an estimated 1.7 million obsolete TVs and computers in 2002 alone.
q Consumers treat e-waste differently. They already have stockpiled 1.9 million TVs and computers; by 2010 this number will be 5.5 million units.
Currently, local governments run extremely expensive
programs to collect household hazardous wastes (HHW) from residents. It would be difficult to add e-waste to
these programs for the following reasons:
·
Electronics are complex products that are difficult to take
apart for recycling. Most products
accepted at HHW programs are simple products that don’t require lots of
processing to get ready for recycling, such as motor oil or paint.
·
Electronics contain multiple hazardous materials. Other products accepted at HHW programs
contain only one.
·
Electronics are bulky and difficult to handle. Other products accepted at HHW programs are
not, so collection sites are small.
There often isn’t enough space to store e-waste.
Also, it’s important to remember that existing HHW programs are very expensive, and taxpayers are paying for them through surcharges on utility bills. Currently, demand for these services outstrips governments’ ability to provide them. Adding additional materials to these programs is not the solution.
q
Electronics are
too complex and too bulky to add to existing HHW collection systems.
q The existing rate base that pays for HHW programs is not large enough to pay for the current HHW collected at these sites; it could never support adding electronics.
Recycling services must be convenient for consumers. Governments long have recognized that their HHW programs are not especially convenient. Local governments cannot afford to support multiple collection sites, but industry can. For example, the Governor’s proposed budget for 2003-2005 estimates approximately $41 billion in revenues, or roughly $20 billion per fiscal year.[5] In contrast, in 2001, one of the worst years on record for tech companies, HP posted revenues of $45.2 billion,[6] and Dell’s net revenues were $31.9 billion.[7] HP alone earned more in one year than Washington will earn in the next two.
Governments are rethinking their HHW programs because offering these services doesn’t solve the problem – in fact, giving consumers a place to dispose safely of toxic products only perpetuates the problem. This product stewardship model is one that governments would like to see adopted for all household hazardous waste products, because it encourages manufacturers to redesign products so that they contain less toxics.
According to the US Census Bureau’s 2001 Current Population Survey Supplement, 67% of households in Washington owned computers in 2001.
q
At least 1,584
tons of lead, and additional amounts of mercury and chromium, would have been
recycled in 2002 instead of being stockpiled in homes or disposed in landfills.
q
Family-wage jobs
would have been created as processors spring up to handle the demand for
recycling.
q
Toxic pollution
would not have been exported to Asia.
q
Non-profits and
charities would have more money to do good work because they would not have had
to pay to dispose of unwanted electronics.
State and local government agencies around the country agree that a national solution is best. State and local governments and representatives of NGOs are working hard at the national level to make that happen. But the national dialogue is moving slowly[15], and in the meantime state and local governments—NOT industry—are dealing with the problems of electronic wastes. It is estimated that under the best-case scenario, it will be five years until federal legislation is enacted and begins to be implemented. However, by 2005, residents and businesses in Washington will generate 1.9 million obsolete computers, monitors, and televisions annually. By 2010, the figure will rise to 2 million units annually, and residents will have stockpiled 5.5 million units in their homes. We cannot afford to wait that long.
In reality, most national legislation emerges from problems faced at the state and local level. It will not be in industry’s interest, and may not seem urgent enough for Congress to act, until a ground swell of state laws emerge. This has been the case with legislation addressing mercury, fluorescent lamps, and NiCD batteries.
To avoid “piecemeal” legislation, many state legislatures are deliberating over legislation based on the same model. These new laws will be similar and will allow for federal preemption if Congress enacts comparable legislation.
q
A national
approach is best.
q
However, we
cannot wait indefinitely; the national dialogue is moving very slowly. By 2005, Washington will generate at least
1.9 million obsolete computers, monitors, and TVs annually.
q
The status quo is
in industry’s interest; any new legislation will require new costs or
responsibilities for industry.
q
In the meantime,
our citizens, businesses, and taxpayers are bearing the cost and the risks of
managing these wastes.
q
It may take
multiple state laws before a national law emerges (as was learned with mercury,
fluorescent lamps, and NiCD batteries).
q States are coordinating so that the state laws will be comparable and allow for federal preemption if a federal law is implemented with similar requirements.
The current system is not working; there is very little recycling or proper disposal of the hazardous substances in these products. The systems that exist are either expensive or inconvenient to consumers, or both. Toxic substances continue to be included in product design because there are no penalties or financial incentives to motivate improved design.
State and local governments—and their taxpayers—are bearing
the brunt of the environmental costs and risks. These electronic products contain lead, cadmium, mercury, and
other toxic materials that could cost millions of dollars to clean up in the
future if not dealt with today. We already learned this lesson through
Superfund: over between 1980 and 1999, EPA reached settlements with polluters
that total over $16 billion.[16]
q
The system is NOT
working; there is very little recycling or proper disposal of the toxic
substances in these products.
q
The existing
systems to recycle electronic products are not cost-effective (due to
insufficient volumes of recyclables) and/ or too inconvenient for consumers.
q
Toxic substances
continue to be designed into products because there are no penalties or
financial incentives to change design.
q
State and local
governments and their taxpayers are bearing the brunt of both the risks and
costs.
q
The products
contain lead, cadmium, mercury and other toxics that are highly dangerous to
the environment if not handled properly.
q Superfund has already shown us the consequences of not addressing toxics in a timely manner.
It’s probably not “fair” for anyone to be financially responsible for these wastes; however the fact is that these wastes have accumulated and something needs to be done with them. Part of the reason they’ve accumulated is because manufacturers have not had responsibility for their end use.
Under this bill, the manufacturers would contribute to the cost of managing these “orphan” wastes based on their market share. This seems to be the most “fair” method to deal with these materials because the companies’ current market share is partially due to the fact that competitors have gone out of business.
This construct is similar to that of Superfund. Current owners of toxic properties retain a share of the liability for the clean up even if they inherited the problem from another company.
q
It’s not fair for
anyone to have to handle it, but since current companies have taken over the
market share of their former competitors, it’s probably most fair to have them
deal with it.
q This system is similar to that of Superfund.
This bill does not require manufacturers to undertake collection themselves. They are free to use the existing infrastructure of haulers, retailers, charities, buy-back centers, and private recyclers if they so choose, provided those entities agree to participate. All manufacturers have to do is design the system and pay for it.
There are a number of ways that manufacturers can capitalize on existing infrastructure. They can run the delivery system backwards, arrange for retailers to act as collection points, or simply contract with private entrepreneurs to collect and transport materials. Manufacturers may find that keeping collection, transport, and processing systems together leads to economies of scale and cross-subsidization which benefit them.
q
They don’t have
to DO it, they just have to set it up and pay for it.
q There are lots of ways to set it up. Industry can use its business acumen to figure out which one works best.
To date, voluntary efforts have been unsuccessful. The responsible manufacturers who try to do the right thing incur higher costs than less responsible competitors. This uneven playing field actually creates a disincentive for manufacturers.
The electronics-recycling bill does provide an incentive for industry. By adding the true costs into the product price, it provides an incentive for industry to design products that are easy to dissemble for recycling. As the costs of recycling go down, profits for manufacturers go up. This bill levels the playing field for manufacturers so that they do not suffer for doing the right thing.
Results are what count. If industry has an alternate approach that uses different incentives to achieve equal or greater recycling results, we would be eager to discuss it.
q
Right now, there
are no incentives for manufacturers, and thus no significant recycling
strategies are emerging.
q
By requiring
manufacturers to recycle, industry has clear incentives to design products that
minimize the use of toxic substances and/or that are easy to disassemble for
recycling.
q If there is a voluntary approach that achieves the same results without transferring the burden back to local governments, it should be put forward.
This bill has two aspects to help prevent the free-rider syndrome: it makes companies individually responsible for their wastes, and lets manufacturers design the system that is most cost-effective and efficient.
Because manufacturers are individually responsible, companies could set up a system to take only their own products, thereby shutting out those companies that don’t comply. Consumers who buy those companies’ products quickly will learn that these companies are irresponsible, leaving the consumers to try to solve the headache of how to handle these products – and the consumers will leave the company.
Under this bill manufacturers are free to use their business skills to set up the best system they can. Presumably, these skills include figuring out ways to prevent competitors from benefiting from their efforts for free. It is likely that manufacturers will be clever enough to figure out ways to prevent free riding on their system(s).
One possible way to prevent free riding in the area of improved product design is for the system to charge manufacturers an amount proportional to the difficulty of recycling their products. This scenario would provide a strong incentive for all manufacturers to design products that are non-toxic and easy to disassemble.
q
Because companies
can set up their own systems, they can refuse to take products from other
manufacturers that don’t pay their way.
A primary role of government is to protect human health and the environment. To fulfill this role, governments set standards of behavior for manufacturers (e.g. consumer safety standards, minimum design standards for landfills, emission control standards, etc.) These regulations create a level playing field that does not penalize manufacturers for doing the right thing.
This legislation offers industry complete flexibility in how the electronics recycling system is designed and implemented. Manufacturers are required to prepare and implement an electronics recycling system, but they are not required to collect a fee or set up specific collection systems; industry has complete flexibility to design the best system so long as it achieves the goals. Given this industry’s ability to create and market new products, such as Personal Digital Assistants, it is likely that electronics manufacturers can create an efficient system to collect and recycle e-waste.
q
This legislation
does just that: it sets a standard and then offers manufacturers complete
flexibility to design the system they think works best to meet it. All it requires is that they outline this
approach in a plan and achieve specific results. HOW they do this is up to them.
Dell sells over $25 million dollars of equipment to the State of Washington each year. Under this bill, the state would not be allowed to procure equipment from any manufacturer that does not comply. $25 million dollars in annual sales is adequate incentive for Dell to comply!
It is necessary to create the infrastructure to recycle the hazardous substances in these products. There are two ways to pay for this: (1) create or expand government programs, meaning general taxpayers bear the cost; or (2) include the costs in the price of the product.
It is the most fair to have the product include the costs in the purchase price. This means products are priced with their “true” cost—there are not hidden or unexpected costs to the consumer when they want to recycle or dispose of the product. It also protects general taxpayers by targeting the cost to those who are actually buying and using the products.
This system also takes advantage of economies of scale. Right now individual local governments are setting up one-time collection events that cost thousands of dollars in staff time, event management, and collection and recycling services. Setting up a system or systems that would be in place permanently would create economies of scale. Due to these economies of scale, it costs consumers less when recycling costs are added to the price of the product rather than at the end of its useful life.
Making manufacturers at least partly financially responsible for the end-of-life management of their products creates the incentive to reduce those costs at the front-end. There is a direct financial incentive to reduce costs by creating products without hazardous substances and that are easy to disassemble for recycling, as well as other design improvements that will drive down the cost of recycling and disposal. The competitive incentive to bring the lowest-priced products to the market place will encourage manufacturers to QUICKLY conduct research and development of improved products; right now this incentive does not exist because the disposal costs are borne by local governments—not manufacturers.
q
Product prices
should reflect the true cost of products.
Product prices already include the costs of marketing, packaging,
transportation, overhead, etc. Adding recycling costs is consistent with the
current system.
q
It is unfair for
general taxpayers to continue paying the tab
q
It is essential
that an infrastructure is created to properly handle the hazardous substances
in these products.
q
This provides an
incentive for better product design
q
As products
become more recyclable, reusable or contain less toxic materials, industry’s
costs decline…and ultimately so will the cost to consumers.
q Competition to bring down costs will lead to more R&D by manufacturers; currently there is no incentive.
Computer prices are not going up: they are going down. According to Business Week Online, computer prices fell 17% in 2000. In the last six months of 2001, they plunged 34%.[17]
On February 21, 2003, the Dell website offered its Dimension 4550 desktop computer with a 17” CRT monitor for $1,217 (note that this is $50 off the usual price).[18] Assuming that the recycling fee would add $10 to the purchase price, the total price would be $1,227 (still $40 off!). A recycling fee of $10 would be approximately 0.8% of the total purchase price of this computer. It is reasonable to conclude that consumers would not notice an increase of 0.8% in the purchase price of a computer when overall prices are falling at least 17% per year. Indeed, the net effect would be that prices would fall 16.2% per year.
In addition, retailers and manufacturers offer a dizzying array of special discounts and sales, and computers come in so many configurations that consumers would have a difficult time identifying a $10 recycling fee in the price of the product. On February 21, 2003, Dell offered free shipping with the purchase of any new home computer system, $150 off its Inspiron 2650 C Notebook computer, $50 off any new Dimension desktop computer, and a free DVD upgrade on any Inspiron notebook computer, among others.[19]
q
Computer prices
are falling rapidly. Consumers will not
notice a 1% increase in the price of a computer when overall prices are falling
17% annually.
q There are so many special discounts and different configurations that consumers would have a difficult time identifying the recycling fee in the price of a product.
Industry earns far more annually than does the State of Washington. The Governor’s proposed budget for 2003-2005 estimates approximately $41 billion in revenues, or roughly $20 billion per fiscal year.[20] In contrast, in 2001, one of the worst years on record for tech companies, HP posted revenues of $45.2 billion,[21] and Dell’s net revenues were $31.9 billion.[22] HP alone earned more in one year than Washington will earn in the next two. These are just two of the several dozen major manufacturers.
Cities often find that environmental purchasing programs save them money. In the specific case of computers, before environmental purchasing programs were implemented, cities found themselves stuck with the high cost of handling equipment once it becomes obsolete. Disposal costs are high, and because the equipment is hazardous, staff must be trained to handle it properly and keep all necessary records, and then spend time trying to find some way to reuse or recycle it. These costs were not built into the purchase price of the product, but with environmental purchasing, they are. In fact, many environmental purchasing programs for electronics require the vendors to handle obsolete equipment, thus removing these costs from city budgets entirely.
In addition, environmental purchasing programs often save cities money because the electronic products are more energy efficient, more durable, and easier to upgrade as a result.
q Environmental purchasing programs usually save money.
Landfills are designed to handle municipal solid waste—not hazardous wastes. While the laws make some exceptions for hazardous waste from households, the magnitude of the amount of hazardous substances in electronics is of grave concern to the local governments who run these landfills. About 40 percent of the heavy metals, including lead, mercury, and cadmium, in landfills come from e-waste.[23] Some jurisdictions are banning these products from disposal.
Also, just because hazardous wastes are disposed in landfills doesn’t mean they stay there. Norway recently announced that it found evidence that brominated flame-retardants, a substance commonly used in e-waste, had leached from its landfills. The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority found traces of these chemicals in moss samples taken from 11 sites around the country, suggesting that brominated flame-retardants travel in more ways than previously thought. Comparison of the moss samples to cod liver and mussel samples indicates that local sources of brominated flame-retardants are more significant than global sources.[24] Although the human health and environmental effects of brominated flame-retardants are still under debate, studies have shown increasing concentrations of them in human blood and breast milk, sediments, fish, and bird eggs.[25]
According to David Wood, program director of Grass Roots Recycling Network, “When mercury is disposed in a landfill and combined with methane, it forms methyl mercury which is a form of nerve gas.”[26]
There are also resource extraction concerns. Mining causes devastating environmental damage and places health risks on workers’ safety—and many of these resources can be recycled. By requiring recycling of electronics, the impacts of mining on the environment and workers are reduced.
q
Landfills are
designed for the disposal of municipal solid waste—not hazardous waste.
q
The magnitude of
the hazardous waste entering landfills from disposal of household electronic
products is of grave concern to the local governments who run the
landfills—some are prohibiting their disposal.
q
Studies in Norway
have shown that hazardous materials can leach out of landfills.
q The toxic substances in these products—e.g. lead, cadmium & mercury—can be recycled. This will reduce the environmental impacts and worker safety risks of mining.
Yes. The European Union’s new law requiring manufacturers to take back and recycle e-waste also requires manufacturers to eliminate lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) from e-waste by July 1, 2006.[27] According to an analysis of the new EU law, a number of manufacturers have already phased out lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and halogenated flame retardants in various applications. This suggests that the costs of doing so are quite limited.
The only issue where industry has claimed more substantial costs is lead in solders. According to calculations by the European Commission, the additional operating costs of using tin-based solders are roughly estimated to be about EUR 150 million/yr. Annualized investment costs are thought to be relatively low. On this basis, the total price increase would remain very small for most products (e.g. EUR 0.0006 to 0.003 per telephone, EUR 0.003 to 0.017 per calculator and EUR 0.03 to 0.17 per television). The issue of replacement of lead in solders is thought to be more of an issue of fine-tuning alternative technologies than a cost question.[28]
Both the EU bill and the Washington State bill contain exemptions for certain products where hazardous ingredients are necessary, including the lead in cathode ray tubes. Under the WA bill, manufacturers must prove that phasing out a hazardous material from a particular product is not possible to gain an exemption.
q
Yes. Manufacturers already have phased toxics out
of many products at little to no cost to the consumer.
q There are exemptions in the bill for products with no reasonable alternatives.
Mercury contamination is a “man-made” problem. Although mercury is a naturally occurring substance, it does not cause problems until it is mined and concentrated in products. Once it is released into the environment, it vaporizes, so it can travel easily between land, water, and air, exposing humans and other species to serious health risks.[29]
The science says that American practices are the source of much of our mercury. An EPA study estimates that the US adds about three times more mercury to the global reservoir of mercury than it gets from the global reservoir.[30] Mercury is very much our problem.
Because mercury can travel long distances, efforts to reduce mercury must take place at all levels of government, including Washington state government. The Washington State Department of Ecology says that the largest sources of mercury in Washington are products that contain mercury, the coal-burning power plant in Centralia, industrial releases from pulp and paper mills and other businesses, dentists’ offices, and incinerators.[31]
q
Mercury
contamination is a man-made problem.
Mercury is not a problem until it is mined and concentrated into
products.
q
The science says
that the US adds about three times as much mercury to the global reservoir than
we get from it. Asia is not the
problem: we are.
q
Mercury reduction
needs to happen at all levels of government to be successful.
q
The biggest
sources of mercury in Washington are products that contain mercury and
industries that use or burn it.
Federal law prohibits land disposal of mercury, but there is a groundswell of support for changing this policy and creating a national permanent storage site for mercury. In 2002, a bill calling for a task force to recommend long-term mercury management strategies passed the Senate (S 351 ES) and currently is in the House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. More work needs to be done on this issue, however: despite repeated requests from the environmental community, EPA has not changed its regulations to allow land storage of mercury. [32]
The only known large sequestered stockpile of mercury in the world is the Department of Defense’s mercury stockpile, which until 1994 was also being sold on the open market.[33] However, Sweden has decided to store its mercury in deep rock shelters in the near future. Sweden will stabilize the mercury and store it in barrels, and estimates that leaching will be less than 10 grams per year. In comparison, a thermometer contains 2 grams of mercury.[34]
Currently, mercury is either incinerated or recycled into other consumer goods. Incineration should not be an option: few hazardous waste incinerators in the country have carbon injection systems, which is the only technology that can capture the majority of mercury emissions and transfer them into the ash (which is landfilled), so much of the mercury that is incinerated is emitted into the environment. Recycling is not a good solution either. These new products end up in the incinerator eventually, or get exported to the third world where environmental regulations allow its release into the environment.[35]
q
Yes. Permanent storage is the only way to remove
mercury from the environment. Other
countries plan to store mercury permanently.
q
We need policy
changes to allow permanent storage to happen.
q
Currently mercury
is either incinerated or recycled.
Either way, the mercury is released to the environment eventually.
Phasing out toxics is an important goal of this bill, but it is not the only goal. This bill is also about providing convenient ways to recycle all of the components of electronic products, not just the toxic constituents. Once the system is in place, it should be simple to continue to operate.
Yes. The State of Maine passed a law requiring auto manufacturers to set up a collection and recycling system for mercury switches removed from automobiles, and to pay people who bring switches in for recycling a minimum of $1 per switch. The goal of the program is to collect and recycle at least 90 pounds of mercury per year from mercury switches removed from motor vehicles.[36]
Also, the European Union has required electronics manufacturers to take back and recycle electronics starting in September 2005.[37] In Canada, manufacturers are proposing to set up a very similar system for electronics, spurred in part by provincial and territorial legislation.[38]
A number of voluntary efforts are underway as well. The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation created a national system for collecting and recycling batteries. Appliance and battery manufacturers and retailers finance the program, which collects batteries at retail and wholesale locations and ship them to metals recovery facilities. Other products returned to the vendor for recycling after their useful lives are major appliances such as refrigerators, tires, motor oil, and needles (sharps).[39]
Also, while not providing the level of manufacturer flexibility that HB1942 allows, there are many other examples in the US of front-end financing to manage problematic wastes or to establish effective recycling programs. These include advance disposal/recycling fees and or deposit/return systems for batteries, motor oil, tires, appliances, and bottles.
q
Yes. Maine requires auto manufacturers to create
and fund a recycling program for mercury switches removed from motor vehicles.
q The EU requires electronics manufacturers to take back and recycle electronics starting in 2005.
q The electronics industry itself is proposing to develop a very similar system in Canada.
In 2002, the European Union passed a package of laws requiring electronics manufacturers to take back and recycle their products, and to phase out toxics. The recycling bill covers a far larger suite of electronics products than the proposed Washington legislation: the European bill also covers appliances such as toasters and additional consumer electronics such as fax machines.
The law went into force on February 13, 2003. On August 13, 2005, manufacturers will be individually financially responsible for their products marketed after that date, and collectively responsible for all wastes sold prior to that date. The bill allows manufacturers to increase the price of new products to cover the costs of recycling “orphan” wastes for eight years in most cases and ten years in the case of large domestic items such as refrigerators.
By December 31, 2006, all EU states must achieve an average waste collection rate of four kilograms per person annually, and manufacturers must meet a series of recycling and recovery goals for each different type of electronics.
The law requiring phase-outs of toxic materials has similar deadlines. By July 1, 2006, manufacturers must eliminate lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and the flame retardants PBDE and PBB from their products, unless specifically exempted. The European Commission will review the current exemptions by February 13, 2005, and recommend changes based on technological and scientific progress. The exemptions thereafter will be reviewed every four years.
Lastly, by December 31, 2008, the European Union must set new collection, recycling, and recovery goals. These targets may include goals for the reuse of whole appliances and for the handling of medical items.
q
Manufacturers
must recycle new and orphan wastes starting August 13, 2005.
q
Manufacturers
must phase out toxics from electronics (with certain exceptions) by July 1,
2006.
q The European law covers appliances and other electronic products as well as computers, televisions, and cell phones.
There have been two related problems in Germany: the Duales System Deutschland (DSD), the non-profit that manages the “Green Dot” packaging recycling program, has been attacked as a monopoly. Also, Germany’s cartel office recently ruled that DSD abused its monopoly powers to attempt to prevent competition.
The implications for a Washington electronics product stewardship program are that whatever program industry sets up to recycle electronics must allow competition. HB 1942 does just that by allowing multiple Third Party Organizations and requiring individual manufacturer responsibility.
q
The non-profit
that runs the “Green Dot” packaging-recycling program was found to be a
monopoly that misused its market position to block competition.
q
The electronics
industry in Washington must set up a system for recycling electronics that allows
competition.
[1] Small Quantity Generators are businesses that generate less than 2200 pounds of hazardous waste or more than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste per calendar month. (http://www.transource.org/Shared_files/lqg_r1.htm)