1. California Integrated Waste Management Board Contractor’s Report Framework for Evaluating End-of-Life Product Management Systems in California Presented by Heidi Sanborn July 10, 2007

2. Presentation Overview I. Project Scope II. Framework to Analyze Systems III. Case Studies IV. Recommended System Elements V. Implications for California VI. Stakeholder Comments VII. Next Steps

3. I. Project Scope Report Provides CIWMB: 1. EOL System Evaluation Framework 2. Eight Case Studies Using Framework 3. Lessons Learned from Case-Studies 4. Recommended Framework 5. Implications for California

4. II. Framework to Analyze Systems 1. Funding Mechanism (fee or tax) 2. Funding Approach (voluntary or mandatory) 3. Fee/Tax Collection Point (POM, POS, POD) 4. Fund Consolidation Point 5. Fund Oversight 6. Fund Management 7. Program Oversight 8. Program Operations Framework should enable comparison of EOL Systems and provide a basis for meaningful dialogue

5. Applying the Framework: Eight Case-Studies  40 EOL Systems – Selected 8  Longevity – (1989 – 2007)  Data Availability  Product Types - all hazardous, 4 u-waste/1 paint  Special Features e.g. Auto Battery  5 State/Provincial & 3 National  5 Mandatory & 3 Voluntary  6 Fee Collected from POM/ 2 POS/ 0 POD  Applied Framework to the 8 Systems  Present Data as Reported

6. 1. Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation 2. Product Care 3. Maine Thermostat Law 4. Maine E-Waste Law 5. California Automobile Battery Take-Back 6. California E-Waste Law (SB 20) 7. California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act 8. Agricultural Container Recycling Council Eight EOL Systems Case Studies

7. 1. Funding Mechanism No taxes Visible vs. Invisible 2. Funding Approach Voluntary has risks e.g. ACRC Mandatory = fair 3. Fee Collection Point POS can be costly e.g. CA e-waste POM fewer players in the System, more efficient e.g. CA oil 4. Fund Consolidation Producers can manage own funds, government managed funds grow government size 5. Fund Oversight - 6. Program Oversight - 7. Program Operations – Customized by product EOL Systems Case Studies – Trends

8. 1. Funding Mechanism - Fee 2. Funding Approach - Mandatory 3. Fee Collection Point – Point of Manufacture 4. Fund Consolidation - 5. Fund Oversight - 6. Program Oversight - 7. Program Operations – Customized by product III. Recommended System Elements

9.  Role of Government  Mandates participation – no “free-riders”  Principal and performance based regulatory framework  Requires transparency and accountability  Role of Producers  Design and implement system covering 100% of costs  Design and implement with stakeholder consultation  Submit name of companies not participating in scheme  Submit annual report and audited financials  General Findings  ADFs did not adequately promote green design so the government added requirement for producers to report on green design efforts Role of Government and Producers BRITISH COLUMBIA

10. IV. Implications for California  Europe is more urban  3 years experience  Invisible Fee/Producer  Out-sources most work  Fees dropped 50-90% in 18 months  Competition  Promotes individual producer responsibility European Recycling PlatformProduct Care  British Columbia is more rural  12 years experience  Visible Fee/Consumer  Most work by staff  Fees dropped 14% in 12 years  Competition not present, but allowed  Collective producer responsibility

11. V.Stakeholder Comments Is the Framework a Useful Tool? Agree NEMA Battery Group Regional Council of Rural Counties Clean Harbors Disagree NEMA Thermostat Recycling Corporation No Response to the Question National Paint and Coatings Association California Retailers Association Kinsbursky Brothers Inc. Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers Waste Management Inc. NEMA Lamp Group CCDEH RBRC

12. Stakeholder Comments Framework Improvements/Concerns?

13. Possible Next Steps PHASE I  Request U-Waste and Paint producers voluntarily begin working on design of Program Operations  Offer support in convening stakeholders  Determine timeframe and milestones to achieve goal of 100% capture rate  Establish baselines, develop formula to calculate collection rate, and determine data points to measure program effectiveness

14. Possible Next Steps PHASE II  Draft “framework legislation” which allows products to be added by regulation  Adopt policies on preferred role of government  Communicate roles of CIWMB/DTSC in managing products at EOL  Expand state green procurement policies to include EPR  Participate with international solutions are discussed for U- Waste and paint products  Consider conditioning sale of products on demonstration of producer participation in effective collection systems  Consider banning sale of hazardous products when non- hazardous substitutes exist  Host workshops in California  Continue to gather data and information on international EPR systems