Electronics Recycling Series: The Search for Common Ground

Representatives from electronics manufacturers, government agencies, environmental groups and other stakeholders are gearing up for the next National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) meeting, which will take place Sept. 22-23 in Seattle.

This will set the stage for the next chapter of the ongoing saga concerning electronics recycling. As those following this issue might recall, at the March meeting, NEPSI participants reached a noteworthy decision – they agreed to work toward establishing a financing system that would, in some fashion, incorporate the costs of managing used electronic products into the purchase price of new electronic products.

The NEPSI agreement states that the system may be managed by a third-party organization. Further, NEPSI members agreed to work together to develop draft federal legislation or a consensus about the elements thereof by the end of the September meeting.

Gary Davis, coordinator of NEPSI, says, "All the stakeholders have worked incredibly hard to get to this point. Achieving an agreement on the financing system reestablished their commitment to the process."

Ted Smith of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition adds, "After a year of discussions, this is a good first step forward. It is important that industry has now agreed that we need to develop a ‘front-end’ financing solution to the e-waste crisis and that it will take legislation to accomplish this."

The NEPSI process, which spun off from a more broad-based stewardship initiative, aims to promote product stewardship via a voluntary system of recycling electronics. Some parties believe that, ideally, this would mean that consumers, not taxpayers at large or government, pay for proper end-of-life management of electronics.

Yet to be decided is whether the front-end fee will be a direct fee paid by the customer at the point of sale. This is an approach favored by many manufacturers, who claim that it would be simpler to administer a program through the retailers located within the U.S.

Another scenario being considered is one where manufacturers would pay into a fund for the purpose of recycling units at the end of their useful lives. The latter option could be visible or invisible to the consumer, and is the approach that government entities tend to favor. They believe that it would be easier to administer the program through the relatively small number of manufacturers vs. the much larger number of electronics retailers. In addition, they contend that this approach might prompt manufacturers to make appropriate design changes that would encourage recycling.

Mary Allan, Director of Recycling and Education for the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, Ill. (SWANCC), says that her electronics collection events are much better attended than those of surrounding communities, where residents are charged a fee. The county, so far, has been able to foot the bill for the recycling, in conjunction with Motorola. However, if costs associated with the events continue to rise, this may not always be possible.

Allan says she thinks front-end financing is a good idea. "It’s how people find the cost of recycling most acceptable – they are more willing to pay when they have a new product with value. They are less able to justify this expense when the product has no remaining value," she comments.

In addition, many feel that an up-front fee for end-of-life product management makes the consumer recognize that their purchasing decisions have an impact on the environment, and that they need to take some responsibility. Many would contend that product stewardship considerations should be included in Americans’ purchasing decisions.

But E-4 Partners, Plymouth, Minn., who managed Best Buy’s recycling collection events (including SWANCC’s), surveyed participants at the Best Buy events and found otherwise. According to the survey results (which are not representative of the general public, necessarily), more than 70 percent preferred to pay recycling fees at the end of the product’s life rather than upfront.

Also, the survey results indicate that most participants do not mind paying up to $10 to recycle their CRTs. Charges beyond that, however, were considered unacceptable by most participants.

Allan, of SWANCC, says that education efforts need to be made to let citizens know that there is a cost associated with proper end-of-life management of electronics. Many residents assume that electronics recyclers make enough money from dismantling and re-selling commodities to make a fair profit without having to charge for processing. They do not understand that the days of "striking it rich" from precious metal recovery from electronics are gone.

Mary Jo Rogers of Hewlett Packard concurs. "Part of the package that needs to happen is consumer education – just mandating doesn’t work – you can’t force someone to do the right thing – consumer education has to be a component of this. That becomes difficult if all municipalities have their own types of programs. It becomes increasingly financially and educationally easier if everyone is following the same program," she says.

Similarly, businesses and institutions need to understand that they have a responsibility to ensure that their electronics are handled properly at the end of their useful life. One recycler, who sees dumpsters full of electronics at commercial establishments, states, "I am just praying for a lawsuit!"

The other extreme exists, too – businesses that have computers with many parts still in good working order, but fearful of liability issues, and therefore insist that everything be dismantled.

The prospect of developing a national, front-end financed program for handling end-of-life electronics is a daunting task. NEPSI participants, members of state and local government, retailers, environmental groups and manufacturers are spending a considerable amount of time and effort considering a host of options regarding the finance mechanism, regulatory issues, and the infrastructure of the system.

Jeff Scalese, vice president of Allied Computer Brokers in Haverhill, Mass., says, "If the OEMs could come up with a program that would allow them to recycle in-house or through a secondary recycler and work it into the price of the product, I think that would be great. The environment would benefit greatly. I think it’s a monstrous task, though."

Scalese adds that OEMs in Europe have an infrastructure in place to handle recycling, whereas in the U.S., that is not the case. He says there should be guidelines in place to define "proper recycling" to discourage fly-by-night recyclers from improperly disposing of electronics.

Another electronics recycler states his concern that such a large program, whether administered by a governmental agency or some other third party, might add a layer of bureaucracy that adds to the overall cost of recycling, thereby discouraging innovation and efficiency in the recycling industry.

Rogers, of Hewlett Packard, says, "HP is not opposed to a fee as long as it’s applied fairly and covers all the players in the system, including Internet sales and mail order."

Angie Keating, vice president of technology and logistics for Reclamere, a Pennsylvania electronics recycling firm, says, "If the manufacturer or the retailer is going to collect the fee, I just wonder how that money is going to trickle down to me."

Ted Smith of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition believes NEPSI is moving in the right direction, and that front-end financing will improve the U.S. electronics recycling rate dramatically. He says that implementing a national program is still several years out, however. Revenue needs to be injected into the system to develop the electronics recycling infrastructure. There are few glass-to-glass recycling facilities west of Pennsylvania, he notes, and the infrastructure for circuit board and plastics recovery needs to be enhanced, in his opinion.

Some OEMs are taking a "wait and see" attitude before they devote resources to recycling electronics. Some, however, have clearly made a commitment to developing their recycling program and enhancing the processing infrastructure for discarded electronics.

Rogers says that HP is involved in NEPSI, and has been involved in parts reclamation for over a decade. HP worked in concert with a Canadian mining company to develop a machine that separates discarded electronics by material type. HP also strives to design equipment and packaging with product stewardship in mind. They now have three plants – two of which are in the U.S. (Roseville, Calif., and Nashville, Tenn.). The Roseville is among the largest electronics recycling facilities in the U.S., processing three to four million pounds of equipment each month. It recycles close to 100 percent of the materials received, and will accept any brand product

Meanwhile, legislators in several states, including California, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Nebraska, Oregon and South Carolina, have seen advanced recycling fees for CRTs (and in some cases, other electronics) considered in the legislature. Several states’ bills have died in committee, but California’s and North Carolina’s bills are in committee review while Nebraska’s bill has been indefinitely postponed.

California Bill SB 1619 directs the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to provide grants to local governments to fund CRT recycling programs. SB 1523 calls for a point-of-purchase fee to be collected on all CRTs sold in California, and the fees would fund the grants described in SB 1619. SB 1523 is currently in the Suspense File in the House Appropriations Committee.

North Carolina legislators, meanwhile, are currently considering a bill that would introduce front-end financing legislation. S 1255 (currently in the Senate Finance Committee) and H 1565 (currently in the House Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources) call for an up-front $10 fee on all CRTs sold to someone in North Carolina. In addition, CRTs would be banned from all in-state landfills by 2005. Municipalities would administer the recycling of CRTs, and those who could prove they paid an up-front fee would not be charged for this service.

On the federal level, Congressman Mike Thompson, D-Calif., proposed a federal bill on July 18, 2002 (HR 5158 – The Computer Hazardous Waste Infrastructure Program, or CHIP) that would establish a fee of not more than $10 on new computers, to help establish computer recycling programs. The bill also calls for the U.S. EPA to study the quantity of current and future computer waste generation and disposal. This is the first e-waste legislation introduced at the federal level.

Those interested in the topic anxiously await the fruits of the NEPSI process, as well as the outcomes of the pending state legislation.