1. Northeast Regional Electronics Management Project Rona J. Cohen The Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable August 26, 2005

2. Genesis of the Project Summer 2004: CSG/ERC Energy & Environment Committee suggests taking coordinated, regional action to address problem of e-waste. Summer 2004: CSG/ERC Energy & Environment Committee suggests taking coordinated, regional action to address problem of e-waste. Fall 2004: CSG/ERC approaches Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) with offer of collaboration. Fall 2004: CSG/ERC approaches Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) with offer of collaboration. February 2005: Project gets underway. February 2005: Project gets underway.

3. Project Outline February – March 2005: Disseminated fact sheets for legislators: February – March 2005: Disseminated fact sheets for legislators: Legislative overview Legislative overview Point-counterpoint: ME vs. MN OEA study Point-counterpoint: ME vs. MN OEA study State agency perspective State agency perspective Stakeholders’ perspectives Stakeholders’ perspectives April 2005: First regional stakeholder dialogue, New York, NY April 2005: First regional stakeholder dialogue, New York, NY Legislators and staff from 10 Northeastern states & Quebec Legislators and staff from 10 Northeastern states & Quebec 60+ stakeholders 60+ stakeholders

4. Project Outline (cont’d) May – July 2005: Development of draft model legislation. May – July 2005: Development of draft model legislation. July 15, 2005: First draft of model legislation released to public. July 15, 2005: First draft of model legislation released to public. July 25, 2005: Second regional stakeholder dialogue, Montville, CT July 25, 2005: Second regional stakeholder dialogue, Montville, CT October 2005: Final draft expected for public release. October 2005: Final draft expected for public release. 2006 Legislative Session: Objective -- Coordinated electronics legislation filed throughout the Northeastern states. 2006 Legislative Session: Objective -- Coordinated electronics legislation filed throughout the Northeastern states.

5. Project Participants Active participants include legislators and staff from: Active participants include legislators and staff from: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Quebec and the U.S. Virgin Islands Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Quebec and the U.S. Virgin Islands

6. Why the need for a regional model when problem is national in scope? Currently no active national effort. Currently no active national effort. States moving ahead with their own legislation. States moving ahead with their own legislation. Concern about a patchwork quilt of laws/regulations across U.S. Concern about a patchwork quilt of laws/regulations across U.S. Potential model for other states/regions to follow on e-waste. Potential model for other states/regions to follow on e-waste. Potential for methodology to serve as a model for other products/issues. Potential for methodology to serve as a model for other products/issues.

7. U.S. State E-Waste Laws California: Advance Recycling Fee (ARF) law, 2003; amendments, 2004. California: Advance Recycling Fee (ARF) law, 2003; amendments, 2004. Maine: Shared responsibility law, 2004. Maine: Shared responsibility law, 2004. Maryland: Producer responsibility law, via manufacturer take-back or fee paid by manufacturers, 2005. Maryland: Producer responsibility law, via manufacturer take-back or fee paid by manufacturers, 2005.

8. Facts about Maine* 33,215 square miles33,215 square miles Mostly rural state (3,500 miles of coastline, 6,000 lakes and ponds, 17 million acres forest)Mostly rural state (3,500 miles of coastline, 6,000 lakes and ponds, 17 million acres forest) 1,275,000 people1,275,000 people Largest city, Portland, population 64,249Largest city, Portland, population 64,249 Annual generation of TVs and computer monitors discarded from households expected to be fewer than 100,000 units.Annual generation of TVs and computer monitors discarded from households expected to be fewer than 100,000 units. *Prepared by Carole Cifrino, ME DEP

9. Maine’s Shared Responsibility Law* Jan. 1, 2006: All televisions and computer monitors discarded by households must be recycled. Jan. 1, 2006: All televisions and computer monitors discarded by households must be recycled. Shared responsibility for collection and recycling of household computer and television models. Shared responsibility for collection and recycling of household computer and television models. Model involves state and local government, consolidators, recyclers and manufacturers. Model involves state and local government, consolidators, recyclers and manufacturers. *Prepared by Carole Cifrino, ME DEP

10. Maine’s Collection and Recycling Model* Town “collects” and transports to consolidator. Town decides how to collect and transport; can continue with existing systems. Consolidation facility: Count by manufacturer and report annually to DEP (no sort required); Ship to recycler that meets environmental standards; and Bill the manufacturers Alternatively, manufacturer can take responsibility for their units and/or share from consolidators. Dismantl er/ Recycler Manufacturers responsible for costs from this point on. Waste Flow Who pays Who pays? *Prepared by Carole Cifrino, ME DEP

11. Bills Introduced in the Northeast CT:Several initial proposals CT:Several initial proposals MA: H. 3238 MA: H. 3238 NJ: A. 3057 NJ: A. 3057 NY: A. 3200/A. 3202 NY: A. 3200/A. 3202 PA: Likely ARF bill soon PA: Likely ARF bill soon RI:H. 5783 RI:H. 5783 VT:H. 212 VT:H. 212

12. Key Issues Scope of products Scope of products Financing mechanism Financing mechanism How should orphan products be handled? How should orphan products be handled? What responsibility should retailers hold? What responsibility should retailers hold? Should Environmentally Sound Management Standards be required? Should Environmentally Sound Management Standards be required?

13. Key Issues (cont’d) Should the legislation include a disposal ban? Should the legislation include a disposal ban? Should the legislation include a phase- out of certain toxic constituents? Should the legislation include a phase- out of certain toxic constituents? Minimal burden on local government Minimal burden on local government Use of existing infrastructure Use of existing infrastructure Local job creation Local job creation Consumer education Consumer education

14. Next Steps Utilizing stakeholder input from the July 25 meeting, continue to revise draft legislation with the intention of releasing a consensus document by October. Utilizing stakeholder input from the July 25 meeting, continue to revise draft legislation with the intention of releasing a consensus document by October.

15. For More Information Rona Cohen: (212) 482-2320 / rcohen@csg.org Rona Cohen: (212) 482-2320 / rcohen@csg.org rcohen@csg.org www.csg.org/enrgwaste.asp www.csg.org/enrgwaste.asp www.csg.org/enrgwaste.asp