2. Washington State's Electronics Recycling Law: A Producer Responsibility System
Second International Workshop:
Shared Responsibility
for the Disposal of Computers
in Latin America and the Caribbean
Brasilia, Brazil
Lunes 26 de Junio de 2006

3. U.S.A. National Negotiations Fail
National Electronics Product Stewardship.
Initiative (NEPSI) started in June 2001 with 48 stakeholders representing:
15 manufacturers
15 state, local & federal government reps
18 others including recyclers, NGOs, retailers, etc.
Final meeting February 2004.
Manufacturers could not reach agreement.

4. States Forced to Act State Legislation Introduced in 2004
Of 14 substantive introduced measures:
7 Producer Responsibility
3 Consumer fees
1 Shared responsibility
3 Advisory committees
Several disposal bans

5. 2006 State Recycling Legislation
CANADA
(as of 04/01/06) WA MT OR ND ME ID MN VT NH SD WY WI NY MI MA CT NV RI NE IA NJ UT PA IL OH CA MD CO IN DE WV KS MO KY VA AZ NC NM OK TN HI AR SC MS AL GA TX LA FL
MEXICO
Puerto Rico
Recycling law activity in 2005
Producer Responsibility Bill
Electronics/Computer Task Force
Landfill ban
ARF or 1st Seller Bill
Recycling law adopted

6. Fourth State to Pass Law
California 2003
Financed by fee on customers collected by retailers (advance recovery fee – ARF)
State administers program
Payments made to processors and collectors
Maine 2004
Partial Producer Responsibility
Local governments pay for collection
Manufacturers pay for consolidation and processing
Maryland 2005
Manufacturers pay small fee to state (insufficient)
Local governments provide program

7. Washington State broke the ice on full producer responsibility in the United States!

8. This is Full Producer Responsibility
Manufacturers fully responsible for financing ENTIRE system, not just some part.
Local and state governments NOT stuck with costs.
Local governments NOT forced to collect electronics.
Puts responsibility where it matters – with producers.

9. Why Cost Internalization?
Manufacturers finance the program.
Recycling cost included in product price.
Recycling is a cost of doing business.
Prices should tell the truth.
Recycling becomes a product feature.
Incentive to decrease recycling costs in order to decrease product price.
Impact on green design.

10. Why Cost Internalization?
Shifts cost from local government.
Cost passed on to consumer (not taxpayer).
Less state government bureaucracy.
No additional paperwork for retailers.
Eliminates consumer confusion about ARF.

11. E-Waste Study 18 Month Study Process.
Diverse Stakeholders Representing:
Manufacturers - Retailers
Governments - Recyclers
Haulers - Business Association
Charities
Environmental Groups

12. E-Waste Study
2005 Washington Department of Ecology: Recommendations for Producer Responsibility Approach to the Legislature
“Cost internalization relies on the private sector to do what it does best – compete fairly in the open market to provide the best available products and services at the lowest possible cost.”

13. Legislation Proponents
A group formed around a producer-pays system
Hewlett Packard
Retailers
Goodwill (reuse charity)
Environmental groups
A number of local governments (advisory)
Common Interests
Stakeholder Interests
& Compromises

14. Support From Many Many Diverse Interests Supported Bill
Environmental community legislative priority
Many small and rural governments
School districts
Religious and health organizations
Amazon.com
Haulers, recyclers, processors

15. The Vote Democrats and Republicans Vote YES House: yes – 69, no - 29
Senate: yes – 38, no – 11
Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law on March 24, 2006
Vetoed section restricting export
Strongly supports intent
More work to be done to address that issue

16. The Basics
Product manufacturers provide free recycling services throughout the state at no charge to the product owner.
No state tax or fee charged to the consumer at point of purchase or end of life.
Covered products - computers, computer monitors, laptop computers and televisions.
Implementation Date - January 1, 2009. 16

17. Service Level
Any household, charity, school district, small business, or small government located in Washington State.
Minimum: one collection point in every city with a population of 10,000 or more and at least one in every county.
Collection, transportation and processing costs are covered for electronic products from households/small quantities.
Processing costs are covered, at a minimum, for larger quantities from charities, school districts, small businesses and small governments. 17

18. Manufacturer Responsibility
Manufacturer Pays - Cost internalization.
Manufacturer Registration – All manufacturers must register annually and participate in an approved plan.
Manufacturer Plans – All manufacturers selling into the state must be members of the standard program or may participate in an approved independent plan.
State Costs - Covered by manufacturer registration & plan fees.

19. The Standard Program
Operated by the Materials Management and Financing Authority
Quasi-governmental Third Party Organization
Board appointed by Department of Ecology
Cost of program shared among member manufacturers
All “new entrants” must participate in standard plan

20. Independent Programs
Independent programs are allowed if approved by State.
Must have minimum of 5% return share by brand (can be multiple manufacturers).
Must have sold branded computers in State for minimum of 5 years, 10 years for TVs.
Must meet same service and other requirements as Standard Program.

21. Shared Responsibility
Consumers will typically deliver equipment to collection sites.
Retailers, local governments, recyclers, haulers, & charities may voluntarily serve as collection sites.
Manufacturers pay (including retailers for their own house brands).
State government provides oversight & enforcement.
Shared education.

22. Material & Money Flow

23. Other Highlights
Reuse Encouraged - Programs working with non-profit reuse organizations get additional 5% credit for poundage from those charities.
Enforcement - Non–participating manufacturers cannot sell products in or into the state.

24. Other Highlights
No Disposal Ban - 43% population currently under local disposal bans and more coming.
Labor - Prison labor can not be used to process collected products.
Processing Standards – required.

25. Myth Busting
Manufacturers will not just pay fines and do no program. If don’t participate, they can’t sell in state.
Collectors will not have to sort by brand.
There will not be lots of different programs by different manufacturers to confuse the public and frustrate collectors.
Governments and retailers are not required to provide collection. Decision is voluntary.

26. The Washington State Approach
Puts businesses in driver’s seat for business decisions.
Uses incentives, competition and the market economy to drive system, not prescriptive targets.
Addresses majority of stakeholder concerns.
A fair, progressive approach that will get the job done!

27. What’s Next? Pharmaceuticals Paint Mercury-containing devices
Other electronics
Batteries
Cell phones
Containers
General Product Legislation

28. Recommendations
Only accept a complete system: Collection, Transport and Processing!
A Producer Responsibility Approach is best!
Simplify – it can be easier than Washington State approach!
Learn from British Columbia, Canada’s Stewardship Law!

29. Exporting Harm Video by Basel Action Network
Portrays Chinese recycling operations extremely harmful to human health and environment
What is happening in your country?
What is my country causing?

30. Additional Information
Sego Jackson, Snohomish County, Washington State U.S.A.
WA State Department of Ecology E-waste information
Washington’s Electronics Recycling Bill
Northwest Product Stewardship Council
Product Stewardship Institute
Basel Action Network (Exporting Harm)
Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation 30