July2006

RecyclingTechnology Products
Recycling Technology Products 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 

July 2006 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Technology Administration 

Office of Technology Policy
Technology Administration 

ii Recycling Technology Products

Principal Author & Project Leader 

Laureen Daly 

Office of Technology Policy 

Technology Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Report Team 

Brian Van Hook, Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Andrew Rahaman, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Marc Patterson, Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Jeremy Marcus, Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Connie Chang, Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Acknowledgements 

The Office of Technology Policy would like to particularly acknowledge Benjamin Wu, 

former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy, for his leadership on the 

issue of electronics recycling. 

The Office of Technology Policy would like to thank the following individuals and 

organizations for contributing to and providing peer review of the report: 

Walter Alcorn, Consultant, MARCEE Project and National Center for Electronics Recycling 

Garth Hickle, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance 

Sego Jackson, Snohomish County Solid Waste Division, Washington State 

Staff of the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

In addition, the Office of Technology Policy would like to thank the following individuals for 

their contributions to the report: 

Richard Goss, Electronic Industries Alliance 

John Hayworth, Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries 

David Isaacs, Hewlett Packard 

Clare Lindsay, Office of Solid Waste, EPA 

Paula Prahl, Best Buy 

David Thompson, Panasonic 

Catherine Wilt, University of Tennessee 

David Arrington, Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Eric Zito, Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Staff of the International Trade Administration 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues iii

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 

CHAPTERS 

I. NATIONAL SYSTEM OF ELECTRONICS RECYCLING .................................... 7 

Stakeholders’ Criteria For A National System ................................................................ 7 

Achieving a National System through State Legislation............................................... 11 

II. ELECTRONICS RECYCLING SYSTEM MODELS............................................. 17 

Product Coverage........................................................................................................... 17 

Collection from Consumers........................................................................................... 20 

Recycling ....................................................................................................................... 25 

Financing Collection, Transportation, and Recycling ................................................... 30 

Incentives for Voluntary Industry Recycling................................................................. 45 

Creating a Market for Recycled Goods ......................................................................... 46 

APPENDICES

I. INTERNATIONAL LAWS, TREATIES, AND ACTIVITIES............................... 51 

European Union Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive .............. 51 

European Union Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive ................................. 53 

Basel Convention........................................................................................................... 55 

World Trade Organization............................................................................................. 56 

3Rs Initiative.................................................................................................................. 56 

Japan .............................................................................................................................. 57 

China.............................................................................................................................. 58 

Belgium.......................................................................................................................... 59 

Denmark......................................................................................................................... 62 

Netherlands .................................................................................................................... 65 

Norway........................................................................................................................... 68 

Sweden........................................................................................................................... 70 

Switzerland .................................................................................................................... 73 

Australia......................................................................................................................... 75 

Canada ........................................................................................................................... 76 

Taiwan ........................................................................................................................... 77 

II. U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AND REGULATION........... 78 

U.S. Federal Solid Waste Management Regulations..................................................... 78 

The Universal Waste Rule ............................................................................................. 79 

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 .................................................................................. 80 

National Legislation Introduced in Congress ................................................................ 80 
Technology Administration 

iv Recycling Technology Products

III. NATIONAL ELECTRONICS PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE ........ 82 

Background.................................................................................................................... 82 

12 Models for a National Financing System ................................................................. 83 

Hybrid Advanced Recovery Fee/Partial Cost Internalization Model ............................ 87 

NEPSI Compromise Resolution .................................................................................... 89 

IV. GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES.................................................. 92 

The EPA eCycling Pilot................................................................................................. 92 

EPA’s Plug-In To eCycling Campaign.......................................................................... 93 

Guidelines for Plug-In To eCycling Campaign ............................................................. 93 

EPA Plug-In Program Pilots.......................................................................................... 94 

Regional Take It Back Network- Local initiative in the Pacific Northwest.................. 96 

Best Buy Pilot ................................................................................................................ 98 

WasteCap, EIA, Goodwill, and Retailers Pilot.............................................................. 98 

EIA Consumer Education Initiative Website................................................................. 99 

WasteWise ..................................................................................................................... 99 

eBay’s Rethink Initiative ............................................................................................... 99 

The Recycling Electronics and Asset Disposition......................................................... 99 

Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool .................................................. 100 

The Federal Electronics Challenge.............................................................................. 101 

The Green Suppliers Network ..................................................................................... 102

Design for the Environment Program.......................................................................... 102 

The U.S. Department of Defense................................................................................. 103 

The U.S. Department of Energy .................................................................................. 103 

EPA Guidelines for Materials Management................................................................ 103 

V. STATE LEGISLATION AND ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 110 

Enacted Legislation and State Programs ..................................................................... 110 

Proposed Legislation.................................................................................................... 117 

Remarks by Assistant Secretary Ben Wu toThe National Conference of State 

Legislatures August 17, 2005 ...................................................................................... 121 

VI. RECYCLING MODELS FROM OTHER INDUSTRIES .................................... 128 

The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation ...................................................... 128 

U.S. and Canadian Tire Recycling Programs .............................................................. 133 

U.S. Carpet Recovery Program.................................................................................... 136 

Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Program......................................................... 138 

Alberta Used Oil Recovery Recycling Management Program.................................... 140 

Paint Stewardship Program in British Columbia: Product Care.................................. 141 

Quebec Used Paint Program: Eco-Peinture................................................................. 142 

European Union’s End-of-Life Vehicles Directive ..................................................... 143 

VII. E-WASTE ACRONYMS .......................................................................................... 145 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues v

VIII. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS................................................................ 146 

Federal Register Notice ............................................................................................... 146 

Reproduction of Public Comments 

Association of State and Territorial Association ................................................... 149 

Basel Action Network............................................................................................ 150 

Caroll County & Washington County (MD) ......................................................... 154 

City of Tacoma (WA) Solid Waste Management.................................................. 156 

Clean Production Action........................................................................................ 158 

Clean Water Action Alliance (MA)....................................................................... 160 

Colorado Governor’s Office of Energy Management and Conservation .............. 163 

CTIA [Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Assn.] - The Wireless Association........ 164 

Dell, Inc.................................................................................................................. 170 

Electronics Industries Alliance .............................................................................. 171 

Global Investment Recovery, Inc. ......................................................................... 175 

Hall Radio & TA, Inc............................................................................................. 178 

Hennepin County (MN) Environmental Services.................................................. 179 

Hewelett-Packard Co. ............................................................................................ 181 

Hewelett-Packard Co. (Supplemental Comments) ................................................ 186 

IBM........................................................................................................................ 190 

Indiana Recycling Coalition, Inc. .......................................................................... 192 

International Association of Electronics Recyclers ............................................... 198 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources................................................................. 201 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)........................................ 203 

Maine DEP, Bureau of Remediation & Waste Management Division.................. 206 

Manufacturers Coalition ........................................................................................ 209 

National Recycling Coalition, Inc.......................................................................... 213 

National Solid Wastes Management Association.................................................. 215 

Natural Resources Council of Maine..................................................................... 217 

Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.......................................................................... 218 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality...................................................... 220 

Panasonic ............................................................................................................... 222 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection........................................ 228 

Radio Shack ........................................................................................................... 229 

Recycling Business Group – Federal Prison Industries, Inc.................................. 231 

Retail Industry Leaders Association ...................................................................... 234 

Rusk County Recycling (WI)................................................................................. 236 

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition............................................................................. 237 

Snohomish County (WA) Solid Waste Management Division ............................. 240 

Solid Waste and Recycling – Metro (Portland, OR).............................................. 264 

Solid Waste Association of North America........................................................... 267 

Solid Waste Division – King County (WA) .......................................................... 270 

St. Louis County (MO) Department of Health ...................................................... 274 

TAV Electronics .................................................................................................... 277 

Texas Campaign for the Environment ................................................................... 278 

Vermont Public Interest Research Group .............................................................. 281 

Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation .................................................. 284 

Wisconsin Council on Recycling........................................................................... 287 
Technology Administration 

vi Recycling Technology Products

List of Boxes 

Electronics Recycling Terminology.................................................................................. 16 

Orphan Products................................................................................................................ 32 

Collection Incentive Payment (CIP).................................................................................. 35 

Internet Sales and Foreign Producers................................................................................ 36 

Largest PC Vendors in U.S. Market.................................................................................. 41 

Top TV Vendors in the United States ............................................................................... 44 

List of Tables 

1: Examples of ARF charged in the United States and Europe......................................... 34 

2: California Electronic Waste Recycling Fee .................................................................. 37 

3: HP’s Product Takeback Cost Estimates under Different Financing Systems............... 43 

4: Recycling Contributions set by Recupel ....................................................................... 60 

5: Recupel Recycling Targets 2003 by Product Category ................................................ 61 

6: NVMP Visible Fee by Product Type ............................................................................ 67 

7: El Retur Recycling of WEEE........................................................................................ 70 

8: El Kretsen Material Recovery....................................................................................... 72 

9: SWICO Fixed Fee Rate per Item .................................................................................. 75 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 1

INTRODUCTION 

Recycling of electronic products has become an issue for communities around the world as 

concerns over waste management issues have grown. As a result, lawmakers and 

policymakers have begun to turn their attention to addressing this vexing and multidimensional issue. The purpose of this report is to help educate and inform policymakers as 

they begin their consideration of an issue that affects the technology industry and its 

stakeholders, including manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, and consumers. The Technology 

Administration engaged on this issue because how our electronic waste solutions are 

developed, and who is involved in the decision process, will affect the business models and 

international competitiveness of U.S. companies. 

This report provides an overview of stakeholder positions and concerns regarding the 

development and financing of a system for recycling used electronics. It provides 

background and analysis on some of the most commonly discussed financing models that 

could potentially be incorporated into an electronics recycling system. Attached to the report 

is a full addendum of activities, legislation, regulations, initiatives, stakeholder comments, 

and recycling models used by other industries that will provide greater depth on the details of 

developing and financing an electronics recycling system. This report does not seek to make 

recommendations or to determine whether a particular electronics recycling system is better 

than another. Instead, the report illustrates the various options under discussion, the range of 

stakeholder positions regarding those options, and the areas of consensus. By collecting a 

wide range of information into one comprehensive document, the report is designed to assist 

lawmakers and policymakers in engaging in an informed debate as they consider future 

action on a potential electronics recycling system. 

Electronic products that are near or at the end of their useful life are referred to as “e-waste” 

or “e-scrap.” Several characteristics of e-waste—its bulky nature, the high cost of properly 

managing it, its potentially toxic constituents—distinguish electronics from ordinary trash. Ewaste comprises one to three percent of municipal waste across the United States. It is a 

small but fast-growing portion.1 The International Association of Electronics Recyclers 

projects that given growth and obsolescence rates of the various categories of consumer 

electronics, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 billion units will be scrapped during the rest 

of this decade, or an average of about 400 million units a year.2

Some electronics also contain heavy metals. For example, there is a not insignificant amount 

of lead in TV and PC monitors, especially the older models—enough to cause most TV and 

PC cathode ray tubes (CRTs) to test hazardous under Federal hazardous waste criteria.3

 

1

 EPA, Technology Administration (TA) Roundtable on Electronics Recycling, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

September 21, 2004. 

2

 International Association of Electronics Recyclers, 2006. 3

 See Timothy G. Townsend, Stephen Musson, et al., Characterization of Lead Leachability from Cathode Ray 

Tubes using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste 
Technology Administration 

2 Recycling Technology Products

There are approximately four to seven pounds of lead in older models of CRTs and around 

two to four pounds in newer models.4

Governments are working with industry manufacturers to manage resources in a trend 

referred to as “product stewardship.” Product stewardship is a product-centered approach to 

environmental protection. It calls on those in the product lifecycle—manufacturers, retailers, 

users, and disposers—to share responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of 

products.5 This responsibility spans the product's life cycle: from selection of raw materials 

to design and production processes to its use and disposal.6 Product stewardship also 

embraces the concept that products have materials in them that have a value; and that value 

should be captured, preserved and returned for use in commerce. Governments are 

encouraging product stewardship in a number of industries, such as automobiles, packaging, 

and electronics. 

Over 10 countries have legislation on discarded electronics and more are developing 

legislation. The Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive in the 

European Union (EU) covers the collection and treatment of electronics, as well as large 

household appliances and medical devices. The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) 

Directive in the EU bans the use of certain hazardous substances in electronic equipment. 

The EU Directives are having a significant effect on U.S. businesses. U.S. companies selling 

into the EU market must comply with the WEEE and RoHS Directives and most are 

changing their product line worldwide to meet the new requirements of RoHS. It affects not 

just electronics manufacturers that source globally, but retailers as well. For example, 

Walmart announced that all personal computers it sells in the United States would be RoHS 

compliant by July 2006.7

 Other countries, including Japan and China, have taken steps to 

echo some of these types of requirements within their borders. 

In the United States, 408 bills related to waste management, recycling, and product 

stewardship were introduced in state legislatures in 2003, 50 more than in 2002. Ninety of 

these were related to mercury, usually limiting mercury in landfills; 70 were deposit- related 

 

Management, December 1999, http://www.ees.ufl.edu/homepp/townsend/Research/CRT/CRTDec99.pdf, (16 

June 2006) and Timothy Townsend and Kevin Vann, Research Update: Leaching of Hazardous Chemicals 

from Discarded Electronics, National Electronic Equipment Management and Compliance Assistance 

Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, September 23, 2002, http://swix.ws/cd/EPA_DVR-ATL/content/pdf_atl/Vann.pdf 

(16 June 2006). 

4

 EPA 67 FR 40509, June 12, 2002. California Environmental Protection Agency Managing Waste Cathode Ray 

Tubes, Fact Sheet August 2001, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/CRTs/HWM_FS_CRTEmergencyRegs.pdf, 22 January 2003. Letter written by Linda Moulton-Patterson, Chair of the California 

Integrated Waste Management Board, dated March 30, 2001, http://r4.ucdavis.edu/services/crt/crt.htm, 22 

January 2003. Various industry sources. 

5

 EPA, epa.gov/epr. 

6

 Western Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative, Definition of product stewardship 

http://www.recyclingadvocates.org/wepsi/index.htm. 

7

 Walmart press release, Wal-Mart First to Retail Market with Notebook Computer that Restricts the Use of 

Hazardous Substances, February 20, 2006, http://www.walmartfacts.com/newsdesk/article.aspx?id=1714, (May 

26, 2006). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 3

bills, many to expand existing deposits beyond beer and soft drinks to other beverages. 

Twenty-six states introduced 52 bills related to electronics disposal.8

 In 2004, there were 

more than 35 electronic scrap bills introduced in legislatures in 17 states9

 and in 2005 there 

were a total of 30 electronic recycling bills proposed in 23 states, with two more at the 

federal level.10 Many state and local governments want to see manufacturer financed 

recycling programs for electronics because they feel they are unable to add additional fees to 

their solid waste programs to provide government-supported programs.”11

Five states have banned the disposal of CRTs in landfills: California, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, and New Hampshire. Four states—California, Maine, Maryland, and 

Washington—have passed statewide electronics recycling laws, yet with very different 

requirements for manufacturers and retailers. California has imposed a fee on the consumer 

at the time of purchase (called an “Advanced Recycling Fee” or ARF) to finance the 

recycling. Maine and Washington passed legislation that requires the manufacturers to 

finance the recycling. Maryland’s legislation puts the responsibility for financing the 

recycling on the government and the manufacturers. Other states have commissioned study 

committees to draft legislation on electronics recycling. 

The cost of compliance for industry with any one law can be challenging. But industry is 

now facing a patchwork of international and state laws that can dramatically affect the 

manufacture, marketing, and business models of the U.S. electronics sector and the 

transaction costs and business models of our retail sector. Disparate requirements can lead to 

uncertainties, inefficiencies and high compliance costs that could impede U.S. industry’s 

ability to compete and innovate. 

In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened a dialogue among industry, 

state and local governments, recyclers, environmental organizations, and others to find a 

single national solution to maximize the collection, reuse, and recycling of used electronics 

including a viable financing mechanism. The dialogue, called the National Electronics 

Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI)12, initially focused on a voluntary industry response 

to help increase recycling of used electronics, notably used TVs and PCs from household 

sources. (NEPSI, and this report, have dealt only with residential—as opposed to 

commercial—electronics recycling for which the management costs fall largely on taxpayers 

 

8 Recycling Today, NRC Convention: Debating Recycling at the State and Federal Level, Sept. 18, 2003. 9

 Raymond Communications, Status of U.S. Electronics Waste Legislation, May 12, 2004. 10 E-scrap News, October 2005. 

11 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Federal Register comments in Appendix VII. 

12 This dialogue was initiated and funded by EPA. It was convened and facilitated by the University of 

Tennessee. Initially, the dialogue explored the possibility of whether voluntary programs could provide a 

solution. As the dialogue evolved to the point where the stakeholders were seriously considering a joint effort to 

lobby for Federal legislation, EPA withdrew its participation and funding out of concern that its continued 

involvement would raise questions related to anti-lobbying restrictions applicable to EPA staff and EPA 

grantees. 
Technology Administration 

4 Recycling Technology Products

and local government.13 Disposal of solid and hazardous waste by large businesses and 

organizations is controlled under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

enacted by Congress in 1976; the Act exempts residential waste. Over time, the NEPSI 

participants realized that a national law might be necessary to force otherwise reluctant 

players to do their part to make a national system work. NEPSI reached consensus among its 

multiple stakeholders on many issues, such as the scope of industry products that would be 

covered, but the dialogue was brought to a close when participants could not reach consensus 

on a financing system. In 2004, NEPSI issued a compromise resolution and agreed to 

reconvene after industry reached agreement on the financing method. As of the writing of 

this report, consensus has not yet been reached. State and local government officials 

participated in NEPSI, and an early consensus among stakeholders might have forestalled the 

prospect of differing laws and regulations across the country. 

The Office of Technology Policy (OTP) of the Technology Administration held a Roundtable 

on electronics recycling on September 21, 2004, to examine some of the major issues 

outstanding between stakeholders: most particularly the financing issues. The Technology 

Administration then solicited comments from the public in the Federal Register on October 

20, 2004. This report is an outgrowth of OTP’s Roundtable. It includes views expressed by 

the panelists from the Roundtable and comments submitted by organizations in response to 

the Federal Register notice (hereafter referred to as “commentors”) requesting comments on: 

which products should be included in an electronics recycling program; methods for 

collection, transportation and recycling; financing a recycling program; and the role of the 

government in a recycling program. 

The authors reviewed reports by government, industry, and nonprofit organizations and 

interviewed stakeholders at conferences and by phone. The Office of Solid Waste, EPA, 

provided substantial assistance during the research phase and subsequent review of the 

report. Research for the initial report was conducted between October and December 2004. It 

was peer-reviewed by three experts outside of the federal government and by the Office of 

Solid Waste, EPA, between January and April 2005. Some sections of the report were 

updated in 2006. 

Chapter I of the report summarizes stakeholders’ comments on the criteria for a national 

system of electronics recycling. Chapter II explains the different components of an electronic 

recycling system and describes the many different financing models under discussion in the 

United States or in use around the world. Page 16 provides an easy reference for the 

terminology used in discussing electronic recycling financing systems. 

Appendix 1 describes multilateral treaties, activities, and laws in other countries that are 

affecting the inputs to electronic products and the treatment of electronic waste worldwide, as 

well as analyses of other countries’ experiences establishing and financing national 

 

13 The cost of recycling unwanted electronics from commercial and institutional sources is borne directly by 

those organizations which, generally, are required to meet Federal hazardous waste management requirements if 

they dispose of large quantities of electronics that meet the test for hazardous waste. Electronics from household 

and small quantity generators, by contrast, are exempt from hazardous waste management requirements. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 5

electronics recycling programs. Appendix II describes the federal government legislation that 

governs waste disposal in the United States and recent legislation introduced in Congress 

relating to electronics recycling. The effort by federal, state, and local governments and 

industry and nonprofits to voluntarily come to a consensus on a national system of 

electronics recycling under the NEPSI process is explained in Appendix III, as is a 

description of the 12 models of financing stakeholders considered. Other government and 

industry initiatives, many of which grew out of the NEPSI process, are depicted in Appendix 

IV. In Appendix V, major state legislation on electronics recycling is described, as well as 

examples of proposed legislation to give the reader an idea of the range of proposals in state 

legislatures over the last few years. Also included are remarks by Assistant Secretary Ben 

Wu to the National Conference of State Legislatures summarizing the findings of this report. 

Illustrative examples from eight other industries—such as carpet, beverage container, and 

paint—that have established or have tried to establish recycling programs are analyzed in 

Appendix VI. There is a list of acronyms for easy reference in Appendix VII. Finally, 

Appendix VIII has reproductions of all the public comments received in response to the 

Technology Administration’s October 20, 2004, Federal Register Notice. 
This page intentionally left blank
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 7

CHAPTER I 

NATIONAL SYSTEM OF ELECTRONICS RECYCLING 

Stakeholders’ Criteria For A National System 

The Executive Branch has not taken a position on a particular financing system, on Federal 

legislation for a national system for electronics recycling, or on the need for Federal 

legislation, so this report does not take a position on one solution over another, but is merely 

reporting the views of commentors and stakeholders. 

There are several areas in which many or most stakeholders have been able to reach 

agreement. Representatives of industry, retailers, recyclers and environmental organizations 

that participated in the Office of Technology Policy Roundtable on technology recycling and 

the NEPSI stakeholders all agreed on product stewardship as a goal. The Roundtable 

participants, the NEPSI stakeholders, and the majority of commentors that addressed the 

subject agreed on one other important issue regarding electronics recycling: a uniform 

national system of electronics recycling is preferable to a piecemeal state-by-state system. 

Many of the Roundtable participants and Federal Register commentors had been involved in 

the NEPSI process and reiterated their support for the compromises reached in that process or 

or their willingness to abide by those compromises in order to achieve consensus. NEPSI 

stakeholders had reached consensus on a number of critical issues including the scope of 

products, environmentally sound management procedures, market development 

opportunities, a base-level of infrastructure, and outlines of a third-party organization. 

Stakeholders’ comments demonstrated that they want a system that is effective, efficient, 

enforceable, environmentally friendly, and adequately financed, with equal treatment and 

equal responsibilities for producers in the marketplace. 

Despite these agreements, there is not yet consensus among stakeholders over how to achieve 

a national system of electronics recycling: whether it should be voluntary, pursued through 

state legislation, or through Federal legislation. Some stakeholders believe a national system 

could be realized through state legislation, with no need for Federal legislation, if the states 

all passed the same laws. States, however, have not passed the same, similar or 

complementary laws. The stakeholders are polarized, and the state legislation that has passed 

and the bills that are being drafted are varied and conflicting. As of May 2006, four states 

had passed e-waste financing legislation with dramatically different approaches. It can be 

expected that as more states act, differences may proliferate, thus increasing uncertainties, 

inefficiencies, and high compliance costs for industry. 

Some stakeholders recognize “the inefficiencies inherent in a patchwork of state legislation 

addressing these issues,” but believe the Federal Government’s role should be limited to 

“encouraging electronics manufacturers to have comprehensive product recovery plans that 
Technology Administration 

8 Recycling Technology Products

make state legislation unnecessary.”14 The recycling industry stopped short of endorsing 

federal legislation, instead endorsing “a uniform national approach to establishing a system 

for the collection and recycling of obsolete electronics” in order to create an infrastructure 

with adequate incentives for effective and efficient solutions.15 According to the International 

Association of Electronics Recyclers’ comments, tracking and maintaining a current 

understanding of different legislation and regulations at the state level will increase the 

liability and costs of electronics recyclers. 

Other stakeholders support Federal legislation to pre-empt state legislation in order to create 

a uniform system across the country. One company’s comments capture the reasoning of a 

number of organizations: “...given the large number of stakeholders involved in this issue 

and their competing interests and priorities, today there is no agreement among all involved 

parties on the details for implementation of a voluntary recycling solution. As a result, 

legislation may be required to establish an improved electronic product recycling system.” 16

This company said that to avoid different state-by-state product recycling systems throughout 

the United States, it would support efforts to develop national legislation on this issue. The 

Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) stated that it also believes Federal legislation is 

necessary to implement a national program in order to provide industry and other 

stakeholders with a level playing field. 

The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) said its members prefer “a national solution 

in order to avoid confusion from state to state. Any Federal program must pre-empt existing 

state and local recycling laws. If State electronic recycling programs are developed, they 

should be done on a statewide basis, pre-empting all county and local government recycling 

programs. Where the recycling program includes retail involvement at the point-of-sale, one 

plan for all retailers and manufacturers would be the most fair and appropriate. RILA 

continues that “Retailers that operate via internet, catalog and all other non walk-in retailers 

must not be treated any differently than traditional ‘brick and mortar’ retailers and must be 

required to collect the same ARF [advance recovery fee].” 

In terms of what commentors stated should be included in Federal legislation, some were 

specific, such as the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality that recommended that 

Federal legislation “be passed to establish the basic elements of the system including product 

scope, financing mechanism and initial amount of financing needed, procedures to ensure 

manufacturer participation in the system, legal authority for independent organization 

managing the funds, and performance goals.” It also agreed with other commentors that, 

“The Federal Government should also be responsible for establishing environmentally sound 

management standards or guidelines for end-of-life management of electronics, measurement 

of performance goals, and enforcement of manufacturer participation in the financing 

system.” 

 

14 Retail Industry Leaders Association’s comments in Appendix VII. 

15 International Association of Electronics Recyclers comments in Appendix VII. 16 IBM comments in Appendix VII. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 9

Below is a summary of the most common elements expressed by stakeholders as necessary 

components to a national system of electronics recycling. Not all stakeholders addressed or 

agreed with all of the points listed, but each had many supporters. For example, some argued 

for Federal Government legislation and some did not. Summarizing the most common points 

of agreement here, however, may help the reader gain a familiarity with the various elements 

under discussion by stakeholders as possible components of a national electronics recycling 

system. It should be noted that many stakeholders expressed the view that while they 

preferred one position over another—such as a certain financing system or a particular list of 

covered products—they would be willing to concur within a range of options in order to 

achieve consensus. 

Product Coverage 

• Define covered products clearly to eliminate guesswork and lengthy negotiations 

between producers and retailers. 

Collection 

• Set performance goals such as targets for percent or weight per capita for collection 

and recycling. 

• Provide flexibility for local and regional solutions in collection methods, such as 

using collection incentive payments, not mandates or a centrally proscribed collection 

process. 

Recycling 

• Treat residential and commercial electronics waste the same. Eliminate the small 

generator exception and ban the disposal of unprocessed covered electronic products 

and hazardous electronic waste in landfills and incinerators for commercial and 

residential waste. 

• Change the treatment of e-waste under existing solid waste regulation so that 

electronics products can be reused and recycled properly without triggering 

“hazardous waste” regulations. Promulgate EPA’s proposed cathode ray tube (CRT) 

rule in final to address regulatory barriers and encourage states to implement these 

regulatory reforms. 

• Set environmentally sound management guidelines for recycling and provide a 

system of auditing to ensure that dismantlers and recyclers are evaluated against these 

guidelines. (EPA has already issued such guidelines and tested them with the private 

sector under the EPA Plug-In to eCycling program. The guidelines are reproduced in 

the Appendix to this report. The next step is to establish an entity to certify 

organizations in compliance with the guidelines.) 

• Provide sufficient resources to enforce the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) laws and any new electronics recycling laws and regulations. 

• Control the export of hazardous electronic waste for disposal or for recycling to 

organizations and countries in compliance with U.S. treatment of the same materials. 
Technology Administration 

10 Recycling Technology Products

Maintain the flexibility to find the best recycling solutions on an international level 

within the confines of environmentally sound management guidelines. 

Financing 

• Agree on one financing mechanism to apply across the country. If the choice is an 

ARF, it should be applied nationwide. If the choice is producer responsibility, then 

the legislation should establish measurable collection and recycling rates and 

deadlines as well as reporting requirements to ensure an effective system. 

• Establish procedures to oversee and enforce the system to ensure fairness and uniform 

participation, regardless of the financing system chosen. Many stakeholders 

expressed concern that if the government managed funds that were collected to 

finance a recycling system, the government could use the funds for other purposes. 

Thus, many stakeholders recommended using a third party organization (TPO), 

outside of the government, to manage the system. 

• Build competition and market forces into the system from the beginning in order to 

keep costs low. 

Minimizing Compliance Costs and Maximizing Participation 

• Standardize product labeling requirements, product literature requirements, 

information on packaging requirements, and reporting requirements so producers face 

only one set of requirements for compliance across the country. 

• Include industry in the development of any design standards or material bans if they 

are part of any legislation. 

• Ensure a level playing field for all manufacturers so there are no free riders. 

Regardless of which system commentors preferred, many mentioned the need for 

Federal legislation to ensure that all competing producers within a product category 

are mandated to participate and meet the same high standards for collecting and 

recycling or reusing their electronic products. 

• Mandate that manufacturers who sell over the Internet and foreign manufacturers are 

full participants in the recycling program, including any collection and remittance of 

fees and responsibilities. 

Incentives for a Market-driven Solution 

• Use the Federal Government’s leverage as one of the country’s largest information 

technology buyers to drive design improvements, manufacturer participation in 

recycling solutions, and end-of-life services. Increase use of Federal Government 

programs that Federal agencies can voluntarily choose to join, such as the Federal 

Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the Recycling Electronics and Asset Disposition 

(READ) contract. 

• Develop incentives in the private sector for design for recycling (DfR) and design for 

environment changes (DfE) through programs that reward environmentally friendly 

design, such as Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), Energy 

Star, DfE Program, and the Green Suppliers Network. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 11

• Stimulate recycling and the market for recycled content and products using tax, 

procurement, or other incentives. 

• Educate consumers about the importance of recycling and the opportunities for 

recycling. 

Achieving a National System through State Legislation 

In the absence of national legislation, several states have enacted and many have considered 

legislation in e-recycling. On this issue the states are moving faster than the Federal 

Government to pass laws and promulgate regulations. Legislation by one state could effect a 

change nationwide without the enactment of federal legislation. For example, as part of its 

electronic recycling law, California has essentially imported the RoHS toxics elimination 

targets for electronics established in Europe. As a result, electronics sold into the California 

market must meet the same toxics elimination targets on the same deadlines as those products 

have to meet if they are sold into the EU market. The California law reinforces RoHS 

compliance on manufacturers that want to sell into the California, and by extension, the U.S. 

market. There has also been an effort by states to reach regional agreements on model 

legislation on electronics recycling. For example, the Council of State Governments/Eastern 

Regional Conference (CSG/ERC) developed model legislation.17 Midwestern states have also 

joined in a regional initiative to develop a consistent and unified approach for managing 

waste electronics and model legislation.18

If a number of large states passed the same legislation, industry might be inclined to 

voluntarily form a nationwide recycling program. Mandated collection and processing of 

discarded electronics by several states, however, has not translated to change at a national 

level. The state laws have been diametrically divergent and the recycling industry, unlike 

electronics and automotive manufacturing, is highly dispersed and responsive primarily to 

localized markets. California, which implemented a fee on the consumer at the time of 

purchase to finance the recycling, has a system that was implemented statewide relatively 

quickly. Yet other states have not followed suit. Maine and Washington passed legislation 

that requires the manufacturers to finance the recycling. Maryland’s legislation puts the 

responsibility on the government and the manufacturers. The model legislation developed by 

the CSG/ERC in 2005 and legislative principles endorsed by five Midwestern states in 2006 

are based on producer responsibility. 

Without legislation in a majority or all 50 states mandating uniform performance and 

consistent responsibilities of key stakeholders—particularly for retailers and manufacturers—

there would still be problems with enforcement. Following are examples of several costs and 

difficulties associated with state-by-state legislation and reasons why some stakeholders 

argue that national legislation is needed. 

 

17 See the Northeast Regional Electronics Management Project, http://www.csgeast.org/enrgwaste.asp. 18 See the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, 

http://www.moea.state.mn.us/stewardship/electronicsmidwest.cfm. 
Technology Administration 

12 Recycling Technology Products

Differing Treatment of Hazardous Waste by States 

If individual states treat electronic scrap differently, then one state’s regulations can be 

subverted by moving scrap to a neighboring state. The EPA sets minimum standards on the 

treatment of solid waste and hazardous waste by the states. CRTs disposed, as opposed to 

recycled, from large quantity generators (more than 220 pounds a month) such as commercial 

sources are considered hazardous waste, as are a few other consumer electronics. States, 

however, are free to pass more stringent standards than EPA’s standards. Five states—

Massachusetts, California, Maine, Minnesota, and New Hampshire—have passed more 

stringent standards: they have banned CRTs from all sources, not just large generators, from 

landfills. The California and Maine laws require environmentally sound management of the 

products sent for recycling, but both allow scrap to be shipped out of the state for recycling 

where they have no jurisdiction and cannot inspect the out of state facilities for compliance. 

(Occasionally, the issue of interstate transportation of hazardous waste arises. But, 

government restrictions regarding the interstate commerce of hazardous waste are not 

allowed. The Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine holds that no state can pass a law to 

restrict the interstate movement of goods, so no additional Federal legislation is required to 

ensure that hazardous waste can be transported from one state to another.) 

Cost to the Local and State Governments 

Many state and local governments are pressed to find a financing mechanism for e-waste 

quickly because they cannot handle the cost of disposing of it themselves. For example, 

Rhode Island estimates its one landfill will be full by 2012. The City of Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, had to pay $70,000 in 2003 to handle electronic waste. It cost Wooster, 

Massachusetts, $150,000 to dispose of 120,000 lbs of e-waste.19 Twenty-two of 32 states 

polled said that the economy had negatively impacted their recycling programs, with 13 

states expecting cutbacks and 17 states expecting their budgets to remain level.20 Local 

governments want relief and want other parties they deem primarily responsible—producers 

and consumers—to pay for recycling and associated costs. 

Cost of Establishing One Recycling Financing Structure versus Fifty 

Snohomish County, which has created its own recycling program, said: “Most of this effort 

by Snohomish County, at great time and expense, would have been unnecessary if a smart 

front-end financed system were in place nationally. Few local governments can expend the 

effort we have. It is a great waste of public funds and resources for each local government 

and each state government to have to struggle with an issue that can most efficiently and 

effectively be addressed nationally.” A national system could realize economies of scale in 

many areas, including the institutions and structure of a financing system for national 

recycling. 

Cost of Industry Representation to State Legislatures 

As one commentor stated, “National manufacturers and retailers are already unable to 

provide knowledgeable representation and meaningful comment to state legislated study 

 

19 Clean Water Action, E-Scrap Conference, October 18-10, 2004. 

20 NRC Convention: Debating Recycling at the State and Federal Level, Recycling Today, Sept. 18, 2003. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 13

processes. It does not work to have hundreds of local governments and dozens of states 

trying to communicate with representatives of national manufacturers and retailers. At a local 

level, these communications are useless and ineffectual. The national government needs to 

address issues that involve national corporations.”21 Industry stakeholders are expending 

considerable resources to follow, inform, and argue their views in the states that are 

considering legislation on electronics recycling; in early 2004 there were about 36 electronic 

scrap bills pending in legislatures in 17 states. 

Cost of Compliance to Industry 

Many legislative initiatives introduced in and/or passed in state legislatures to date define 

covered products differently, require different product labeling requirements, mandate 

varying information on packaging requirements, and have unique notification and reporting 

requirements to government and private entities, creating the potential for 50 different 

compliance regimes. Working with the states on the proposed legislation or even just 

following the different legislative proposals is resource intensive for industry. Different 

compliance regimes create confusion, uncertainty and costs for businesses. 

For example, to comply with California’s new fee requirement, manufacturers are required to 

notify all of their retail partners regarding covered products. Those with direct sales systems 

must modify them to apply the fee to sales into California according to a state-mandated fee 

schedule. Some large manufacturers and retailers have stated their primary compliance costs 

in California consist of programming changes costing several hundred thousand dollars. In 

addition, there were ongoing dialogues with vendors over what products were covered and 

under what fee category that were time consuming. Best Buy said its non-labor costs were 

about $800,000 by January 2005, but if labor costs were included, these costs would be much 

higher.22 Maine is using a completely different financing scheme, but some problems were 

similar. Different interpretations among producers and retailers over what are covered 

products and what are not under Maine’s law resulted in extended negotiations by company 

officials and additional costs. There are also collection and transportation costs: one 

television manufacturer estimated that it would cost between $20 and $30 per TV to collect 

from the consolidation points and recycle.23 The recycling industry also stated that tracking 

and maintaining a current understanding of different legislation and regulations will increase 

the liability and expense of electronics recyclers.24

All manufacturers will have to prepare an annual report to California State, and many 

manufacturers that have not already developed worldwide RoHS compliance plans will also 

face compliance costs with California's RoHS provisions. One producer has already spent 

approximately $45 million for the purchase of lead-free soldering equipment to comply with 

 

21 Snohomish County, Washington, comments in Appendix VII. 

22 Interview with Paula Prahl, Best Buy, January 18, 2005. 

23 Interview with David Thompson, Panasonic, December 9, 2004. 24 International Association of Electronics Recyclers, http://www.iaer.org/aboutrecycling.htm, May 2003 

presentation. 
Technology Administration 

14 Recycling Technology Products

RoHS. This estimate does not include technology R&D, quality assurance, and actual 

implementation costs. Nor does it include the costs for phasing out other RoHS materials.25

Creating a Market-driven Competitive Recycling Industry 

Recyclers say they need more volume and steady volume to drive costs and recycling fees 

lower.26 Volume is needed to open regional recycling facilities. Increased volume increases 

the potential for more specialized recycling services to develop to serve niche markets more 

efficiently. A larger industry allows for better capitalized firms and therefore the 

development of more effective competition. It also allows for the creation of additional 

secondary markets for e-waste derived materials, commodities, and other assets. 

For example, Minnesota has very good electronics collection systems and many recyclers, 

but it has no viable secondary markets for glass and plastics due to a dearth of companies 

using the recycled materials in new products. The lack of strong demand for recovered 

materials is not limited to Minnesota. In addition, a coordinated national system would 

enable producers to work together to design changes to their product that would lower the 

cost of recycling, such as making plastic casings easier to remove and reducing the number 

of different resins used in plastic casings. 

Enforcement of the recycling program 

States face a problem with flight or non-compliance if they pass a recycling law on their own 

without the same law in neighboring states. States have no jurisdiction over consolidators or 

recyclers who may drive waste out of their state and dump or improperly dispose of it outside 

the state borders, thus avoiding state standards for environmentally sound management of ewaste. Similarly e-waste may move into a state to illegitimately collect state fees and 

payments on the material. 

Consumers can take their business elsewhere. Visible ARFs in a state may encourage 

consumers to purchase products outside their state, but deposit it for recycling in their home 

state, thus cheating the system of funding. No one expects many Californians to drive to 

another state to avoid its ARF on electronic products. But what if Rhode Island or New 

Hampshire implemented an ARF? Similarly, requirements on producers by small states leave 

open the possibility of some manufacturers choosing to not sell in that state. 

Enforcement on Internet sales and foreign manufacturers and distributors 

States have had difficulty in enforcing regulations evenly and fairly on all companies 

involved in the production, import, and sale of electronics, especially Internet and foreign 

sellers. States cannot enforce compliance on companies that sell into their state over the 

Internet but do not have a nexus in the state. California’s Board of Equalization issued an 

opinion that the state cannot compel out-of-state retailers to collect the ARF.27 Given the high 

 

25 Interview with David Thompson, Panasonic, December 9, 2004. 26 Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, TA Roundtable transcript, p.62. 

27 California Board of Equalization, Do I need to register if my business is located outside California?

http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/ewfaqs.htm#tweleve (22 December 2004). Also see Publication 77, Do You 

Need to Register in California? For Out-of-State Sellers.
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 15

number of electronic sales over the Internet, this could form a significant loophole for 

companies to avoid paying an ARF or assume responsibilities for costs in a producer 

responsibility system. Many stakeholders believe only Federal Government legislation can 

solve the problem of free riders. 
Technology Administration 

16 Recycling Technology Products

Electronics Recycling Terminology 

Advance recovery fee (ARF), advance recycling fee, or advance disposal fee (ADF) is paid by the consumer at 

the point of sale when purchasing a new product and used to finance some part or all of the recycling process. 

Cost internalization (CI) refers to a financing model in which all product lifecycle costs are borne by the 

producer and are included in the total product cost. The producer has the option of passing the additional costs 

of recycling or regulatory compliance onto the consumer through higher prices or absorbing part or all of the 

cost, but there is no visible and separate fee collected by the retailer when the product is sold. 

Partial cost internalization (PCI) refers to a system in which the producers are responsible for some level of 

consolidation and all processing and recycling, and the government is responsible for collection. 

Collection incentive payment (CIP) provides financial incentives to organizations to collect e-waste. 

Design for environment (DfE) is a pollution prevention and resource conservation design process. 

Design for recycling (DfR) means designing for ease of disassembly, parts identification, and recycling. 

End of life (EOL) fee is paid by the final owner of a product when the product is dropped off for disposal or 

recycling. 

E-waste and e-scrap are popular terms for consumer and business electronic equipment that is near or at the end 

of its useful life. Recyclers prefer the term “e-scrap” since “waste” refers only to what is left after the product 

has been reused, recovered or recycled. “E-waste” is the most commonly used term. 

Historic products are old electronic products entering the waste stream that generally are too old to have value 

for reuse or refurbishment or any other purpose. 

Orphan products are those for which 1) the manufacturer no longer exists and a successor cannot be identified, 

2) no manufacturer can be identified or 3) the manufacturer cannot be compelled to participate in the recycling 

system. In an extended producer responsibility (EPR) system, the cost of recycling orphan products must be 

borne by entities other than the original manufacturer. 

Producer responsibility and the EPR models shift most if not all the cost of the recycling process onto the 

producer. In an EPR system, the cost of recycling orphan products must be borne by entities other than the 

original manufacturer. 

Product stewardship is a product-centered approach to environmental protection. It calls on those in the product 

lifecycle—manufacturers, retailers, users, and disposers—to share responsibility for reducing the environmental 

impacts of products.28 Product stewardship embraces the concept that products have materials in them that have 

a value; and that value should be captured, preserved and returned for use in commerce. The Product 

Stewardship Institute includes governments on the list of stakeholders involved in the product life cycle. 

Shared responsibility is a concept that end-of-life management responsibility should be divided, but not 

necessarily equally, between the producers, retailers, consumers, and recyclers, or disposers. 

Third party organization (TPO) is a non-profit organization that provides the management and administration of 

a recycling program for its members. The TPOs’ membership is often made up entirely of manufacturers of the 

product being recycled, but it can include government and other members. 

 

28 EPA, epa.gov/epr (June 15, 2006). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 17

CHAPTER II 

ELECTRONICS RECYCLING SYSTEM MODELS 

In looking at models of existing and proposed electronics recycling programs, the 

components are similar: 

• Defining the products to be included in a recycling program. 

• Collecting used product from the consumer and transporting it to a recycler. 

• Recycling the product; triaging for reuse, refurbishment, or recycling; and minimizing 

waste. 

• Financing each part of the system. 

• Creating a market for recycled materials. 

The main differences between various recycling programs are who collects the electronics; 

who pays for each part of the process; and what incentives are built into the system to change 

product design, encourage market-based collection and recycling, and encourage a 

commercially sustainable use for recycled materials. This report will examine these different 

component parts. 

Product Coverage 

The main issues regarding product coverage are whether to start with a broad and inclusive 

list or a narrowly defined list of products, and whether to limit a recycling program to 

household electronics or include business electronics as well. Opinions varied widely. For 

example, several commentors stated that covered items should be the same as those under the 

EU’s WEEE Directive. Some, such as Minnesota’s Office of Environmental Assistance, 

supported a broad scope of products given the buying and disposal habits of consumers. Dell 

stated that covered products should “focus on those products containing environmentally 

sensitive materials.” IBM supported recycling all information technology products. 

Other commentors supported a more narrowly defined product scope. For example, although 

never finalized, NEPSI participants compromised in February 2004 on the following list of 

covered products: CRT and flat panel televisions, stand alone computer CRTs and flat panel 

monitors greater than 9 inches; laptop/notebook computers; CPUs; small peripherals (mice, 

keyboards, cables, speakers); and consumer desktop devices (printers and multifunction 

devices). The stakeholders agreed on a process to consider new products to be added to the 

list on a regular basis. This list has the advantage of being easy to explain to consumers since 

it is basically televisions and computer equipment. It limits the universe of producers 

involved to television and computer equipment manufacturers without including cell phone 

and stereo equipment manufacturers. Many organizations responding to the Federal Register 

notice request for comments agreed generally with the scope of products endorsed by NEPSI 
Technology Administration 

18 Recycling Technology Products

in February 2004, with an occasional addition of cell phones, personal digital assistants 

(PDAs), television peripherals or audio equipment. 

Most state laws and proposed legislation regarding electronics recycling have focused on 

CRTs in televisions and computer monitors. Five states ban CRTs from landfills and the 

statewide electronic recycling programs focus on CRTs. For example, California’s Electronic 

Waste Recycling Act of 2003 covers CRTs, liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors, and 

laptop computers. Maine’s Act to Protect Public Health and the Environment covers CRTs 

and central processing units (CPUs). Maryland’s Statewide Computer Recycling Pilot 

Program covers computer monitors, computers and laptops. Washington’s new Electronic 

Product Recycling Law focuses on televisions, computer monitors, and desktop and laptops 

computers. 

Televisions and computer monitors currently represent the bulk of electronic products by 

weight (excluding appliances, also known as “white goods”) being disposed of by 

households. An e-recycling demonstration project in 1999 found that, out of 575 tons of used 

electronics (24,000 pieces), televisions represented 25 percent of the total number of items 

collected and 69 percent of the total weight collected. Computer monitors represented 7 

percent by weight and CPUs and computer peripherals were another 5 percent. Telephones, 

radios, fax machines, handheld electronics, stereos, and other personal electronics 

represented 12 percent by weight, and small household electrical goods such as microwaves, 

curling irons, and small kitchen appliances were another 7 percent of products.29

Some recycling programs start simple with a limited number of products and then add 

products as time goes on. This has the advantage of phasing in a program slowly and 

allowing for future additions as the types of products being disposed changes. Limiting the 

products also limits the scope of stakeholders involved in the program and may make it 

easier to introduce design and recycling incentives that can be narrowly targeted to specific 

products. The Electronics Industry Association (EIA) recommended a short list of products 

to start: computer monitors, portable computers, and televisions with video displays greater 

than nine inches. 

The number of covered items has consequences for the size of the collection program 

required and, if a fee is collected at the point of sale or at the time of disposal, the 

administrative costs for retailers and/or collection points. The Retail Industry Leaders 

Association preferred starting with a limited number of products and a clear timetable for 

expansion of the list with changes occurring no more than once a year. Most importantly, it 

stated that the definition of covered products should be clear, limited, and easy to understand, 

a view echoed by individual retailers and other commentors. 

The Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) Wireless Association argued in its 

comments that mobile phones and devices are different from other electronics and, given that 

the cellular industry started a voluntary national recycling effort in 2003, it would like a 

 

29 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Recycling Used Electronics: Report on Minnesota’s 

Demonstration Project, July 2001, p. 46, http://www.moea.state.mn.us/plugin/ElectronicsReport.pdf. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 19

definitive Federal endorsement of a voluntary national recycling program for its industry. 

CTIA’s recycling program is described in its letter in the Appendix. 

The EU WEEE Directive’s comprehensive approach is in stark contrast to U.S. state 

legislation and NEPSI. The EU WEEE Directive covers electronics, appliances, tools, and 

medical devices. Producers must mark electric equipment with the symbol of a wheeled trash 

bin with an “x” through it after August 2005 to remind consumers that the used product 

cannot go into the garbage, but must be recycled. 

Some argue that there are important advantages to starting with more comprehensive product 

coverage. The products covered under a recycling program define the manufacturers, 

retailers, consumers, and other stakeholders that will be involved. Starting with broad 

product coverage could bring all the stakeholders to the table when devising a new recycling 

program without having to try to make new industry sectors fit in later. Convergence is 

another argument for broadening product coverage. As the function of products such as 

computers and televisions, cameras and phones, music systems and computers converge, the 

companies manufacturing these products would need to be part of the product stewardship 

plan from the beginning. In addition, it is not always easy to define into what category a 

product fits. 

There are other potential advantages to starting with more comprehensive product coverage. 

It would provide a higher volume of product driven to recyclers. A greater range of products 

could share similar design-for-environment (DfE) or design-for-recycling (DfR) 

characteristics which might decrease recycling costs. A wider product range might increase 

opportunities for creating uses and markets for the recycled materials. In addition, no matter 

which recycling and financing systems are used, they will require the creation of 

administrative infrastructures. It may be more efficient to set up these infrastructures and 

costs once. Finally, there is the education of the consumer or the disposer of the product. 

Consumers may not remember which items are allowed and which are not. As the point was 

made by participants at the 2004 Roundtable on Electronics Recycling, based on experience 

with recycling collection events, consumers will try to bring in everything whether it is on 

the approved list or not, so the system should be prepared to handle a broad product stream. 

While this report focuses on household e-waste, a number of commentors recommended that 

a national solution cover both household and business electronic products. Collection issues 

are, however, quite different for household and business e-waste. Moreover, many businesses 

currently recycle their used electronics, since disposing large quantities of electronics is 

subject to state or Federal waste laws, and many vendors currently offer takeback services as 

part of the purchasing contract. The Electronics Industry Association brought up another 

issue that could arise from differentiating between household and business end-of-life 

electronic products: “Some companies do not see a reasonable mechanism to limit the 

products so that businesses do not take advantage of the system in place for household 

products. This is a particularly difficult challenge if an advance recovery fee is assessed at 

the time of sale, and businesses are exempt from the fee if they purchase a certain number of 

products in one transaction.” 
Technology Administration 

20 Recycling Technology Products

Despite the range of opinions on the products to cover in a recycling program, many 

stakeholders expressed willingness to compromise on a narrower or broader list of products, 

and most specifically the NEPSI list, in order to move the discussion forward. The main 

concern was that the list of products be very clearly defined and easily understood. 

Collection from Consumers 

The mantra articulated by numerous stakeholders is that electronics should be as easy and 

convenient to recycle as they are to buy. This is the same goal underlying the NEPSI 

discussions. The collection points used by other recycling programs and recommended by 

commentors include: curbside pick up, local government drop-off centers, ongoing drop off 

at retailers of electronic products, one-for-one takeback by retailers, producer-established 

drop-off centers, mail-back to producers, ongoing drop off at non-profits or other private 

sector participants, and sporadic collection events. The main issues in collection of e-waste 

from consumers are whether the government or private sector is responsible or share 

responsibility in some way; whether the government mandates the participation of certain 

entities for collection; and whether the program encourages the voluntary participation of 

entitities for collection through financial or other enticements. 

The local government takes responsibility for collection in a number of existing recycling 

systems. Some systems mandate the participation of retailers in taking back products. A 

number of commentors stated they would support a collection system arranged and financed 

by manufacturers who partner with specific retailers or other entities as long as the system is 

convenient, free to customers, and does not result in an unfunded mandate to local 

governments. They recommended a “collection incentive payment” (CIP) to any collector 

type that meets certain standards, in order to encourage a diversity of entities. EIA 

recommended that local government have the primary responsibility for collection and 

should engage other local actors such as non-profits, retailers, and recyclers. EPA’s Plug-In 

to eCycling program partnered with major retailers and manufacturers to pilot these different 

collection programs around the United States in collecting millions of pounds of scrap, as is 

discussed elsewhere in the report. How well these collection systems work varies by the 

community. 

One of the costs incurred by collection centers is the cost of carefully managing the 

unwanted electronic products so as not to damage them further. If the discarded electronic 

products are to eventually go into a triage system to determine if the product can be reused or 

refurbished or dismantled for parts, as is done for much commercial discarded electronic 

products, then the product must be kept intact. Even if the product is bound for recycling, it 

must be carefully managed since a different level of regulatory requirements govern if the 

product is broken and safety measures must be taken to prevent exposure to lead dust. All 

products must be handled and prepared for transport. This is different from the collection of 

cans, plastic containers, and newspapers that can be thrown in a large bin or back of a truck, 

and such additional handling requirements represent considerable cost. A demonstration 

project in Minnesota found that shipping 535 tons of discarded household electronics to the 

recycler required an additional 125 tons of transport packaging. This study found that the 

most economical way to ship and prepare the televisions and computers (monitors and CPUs) 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 21

was on pallets, bound by shrink-wrap. All other products were best managed by placing them 

in gaylord boxes (oversized corrugated containers). In this study, the cost of shipping 

materials from collection sites to the central facility was the largest single expenditure (38%) 

by the recycler.30

Every collection system depends on consumer participation and—in systems where 

participation is mandated—consumer compliance. Switzerland’s legislation, for example, 

placed a legal obligation on consumers to return out-of-use electrical and electronic products 

and to not dispose of them in the municipal waste system. Governments can ban disposal of 

e-waste in normal residential waste streams, as it does in some countries, states, and local 

jurisdictions, but compliance by consumers is still dependent on consumer awareness, 

convenience of collection, and enforcement. Retailers, producers, governments, and nonprofits can all take on the task of consumer education campaigns to inform citizens. The 

Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC) found consumer education regarding 

disposal one of its biggest challenges. While it is easier to put a battery in the trash unnoticed 

than a television or computer, compliance by consumers will still be an enormous challenge. 

In some recycling systems, the government sets escalating collection targets for industry to 

meet, thus involving industry in consumer education and making sure proper disposal is 

convenient. 

Curbside 

Curbside pick up may be the most convenient means of managing end-of-life electronics for 

the household consumer. Many consumers already recycle bottles, cans, plastic containers, 

and newspapers this way. Curbside service providers—government or the private sector—

could incorporate weekly or monthly pick up of electronic items into their regular pick ups. 

One problem with this system is the cost. Whereas bottles, cans, plastic containers, and 

newspapers are plentiful and so result in high volumes for weekly pick ups, electronics will 

have a relatively low volume. Establishing a separate system for handling such a low volume 

could be very expensive. Minnesota has a recycling program in Hennepin County where 1.1 

million people, 22 percent of its population, lives. It has curbside pick up in Minneapolis 

City, where the volume is most consistent given a high population, and picks up 32 percent 

of the overall program e-waste this way. But in the outlying areas, it does not offer curbside 

pick up; instead it provides two permanent drop-off facilities, which collect 50 percent of 

program collected e-waste, and sponsors one-day collection events, which account for the 

rest of the collected scrap. Another problem is ensuring the quality of the material, if 

collection agents hope to reuse or refurbish products. The nature of e-waste and the need to 

carefully wrap and protect the disposed electronics make curbside pickup difficult. 

Municipal Drop-off Centers 

Local government drop-off centers may not be as convenient for the consumer as curbside 

collection, but may be a more reasonable alternative for low volume items such as unwanted 

electronics that also require special handling. Many local governments already have one or 

more drop-off centers for other types of recyclable waste. This does not mean that these 

 

30 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Recycling Used Electronics: Report on Minnesota’s 

Demonstration Project, July 2001, p. 58, http://www.moea.state.mn.us/plugin/ElectronicsReport.pdf. 
Technology Administration 

22 Recycling Technology Products

facilities are universally accepted as appropriate. Snohomish County in Washington State 

stated in its comments that many existing government facilities are inadequate for handling 

electronic products: of the 10 solid waste facilities in Snohomish Country, only one was 

judged able to collect e-waste when assessed in 2002. 

There are several options for financing local government curbside collection and drop-off 

centers. Local governments could increase the cost of trash collection to the taxpayers’ to 

cover this service. Then, the cost of electronics recycling would be borne by all taxpayers or 

ratepayers, not just consumers who generate e-waste. The local government could charge an 

end of life fee to those consumers who leave electronics curbside for pick up, which would 

require more complicated billing procedures than are currently in place, or charge an end of 

life fee at a drop-off center, which entails having staff at those centers handle money, 

something many of them are not doing now and would require training and more 

administrative controls. One idea suggested by several commentors is that the local 

government could receive a payment for its collection service from a third party entity 

financed by producers or a collection of various parties. Alternatively, curbside pick up could 

also be accomplished without local government involvement, by private contractors paid by a 

third party organization (TPO). 

Retailers 

Many retailers serve as collection centers for other product recycling programs, such as paint, 

bottles, and tires. Retailers of electronic products are an obvious choice for a drop-off center 

in consumers’ eyes according to a recent survey. Sixty-one percent of respondents in a 2002 

survey on electronics recycling said they would prefer to take their computers and electronic 

products back to a retailer for recycling, even if free recycling were also offered at local 

landfills, transfer stations, or via shipping to the original manufacturer.31 Retailers generally 

already have a system for taking back defective or returned product and shipping it back to 

the manufacturer. Staples tested reverse logistics collection schemes in the Northeast in 2004 

as part of its Plug-In to eCycling program. It used the same distribution channels that deliver 

the new products to the retail stores to collect and transport the old electronics to the 

distribution centers. The results of that pilot are available online.32 The Minnesota Office of 

Environmental Assistance (OEA) ran an e-recycling demonstration project in 1999 utilizing 

different collection strategies, i.e., retail drop off, curbside collection, and single-day and 

multiple-day events. Retail drop off was the most successful collection strategy employed 

during the project. Participating retail stores drew the largest number of participants and had 

the lowest cost per participant.33

Retailers feel strongly that any state or national recycling program should not mandate instore takeback but should allow flexibility for various collection points, allowing retailers to 

 

31 SoundStats for Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation, Public Opinion Research on Electronics 

Recycling, August 2002 www.prrbiz.com/WCRC_Report2.pdf. 32 See http://productstewardship.us/pilottakebackstaples.html. 

33 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Recycling Used Electronics: Report on Minnesota’s 

Demonstration Project, July 2001, http://www.moea.state.mn.us/plugin/report.cfm. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 23

voluntarily participate. The retailers at the Roundtable and in subsequent comments made the 

following points: 

First, the retail industry varies from small mom-and-pop stores to large national chains. Some 

stores are very small and do not have the space to take back and store large televisions and 

computers. A representative from Radio Shack made this point during the Roundtable. Radio 

Shack stores operate in very crowded spaces and do not carry large televisions. In addition, 

Radio Shack is undergoing a change similar to that of many others in the retail industry; 

getting rid of the stock room and moving to just-in-time inventory. Soon, all products in the 

store will be on the display shelves thus maximizing selling space and eliminating the stock 

room where returns otherwise would be held. However, many retailers deliver larger sized 

products to their customers that come straight from the warehouse. This could allow for onefor-one takeback, with the customer’s old unit returned to the warehouse, not the store. 

Second larger chains can hold one-time or regular take-back events in their large freestanding 

parking lot with products being packed into large trucks. Smaller retailers often lease space 

in multilevel malls or strip malls and have no ability to commandeer the parking lot for 

special events. 

Third, much of the products being disposed of presently are the large and heavy console 

televisions and personal computers. In stores not selling products this large, the employees 

are not trained in lifting, carrying, and packing these heavy products. Thus, employers would 

have to incur training costs to prevent injuries. 

Fourth, some retailers, such as department stores, carry limited electronics, sometimes only 

as specialty items or on a seasonal basis. Any law mandating participation of retailers as 

collection centers would probably need to take these differences between retailers into 

account. 

Nevertheless, many small and medium retailers are voluntarily involved in the on-going 

collection of electronics, such as in the Take it Back Network in King and Snohomish 

Countries, Washington, predominately made up of small mom-and-pop retailers. Many 

retailers have been experimenting with limited time collection events to see if increasing the 

traffic to their establishment is profitable. A number of retailers volunteered to participate in 

EPA’s Plug In programs and sponsored collection events around the country. 

Private Drop-off Centers 

Producer established drop-off centers are another option. These could be co-located with 

retailers and government drop-off centers or operated separately. From a consumer 

convenience perspective these would, ideally, not be brand specific, but would accept all 

products on the covered list. It could be operated by a company seeking to take responsibility 

for its products/share of products or be operated by a TPO. 

Mail Back Programs 

Producer mail back programs consist of the consumer mailing the product back to the 

original producer. Several computer manufacturers have mail-back programs in place with 
Technology Administration 

24 Recycling Technology Products

varying features. In 2004, HP and Dell customers could fill out a form online describing the 

product they wish to mail back and agree to pay a fee, approximately $20-$60 to send back 

various pieces of a personal computer to HP or $30 for a personal computer to Dell. 34 The 

company would send packing materials and a label to the consumer and arranges for pick up 

from the residence. This is labor intensive for the consumer, as well as costly. The 

inconvenience and cost probably limits participation in these types of mail-back programs. 

Mail back also tends to have high transportation costs. In a pilot HP ran with Office Depot 

nationwide in the summer of 2004 for seven weeks in which consumers could drop off one 

piece of electronic equipment a day for free at an Office Depot for recycling, HP received 

10.2 million pounds or 425,000 items, a number which dwarfed its mail-back program. 

In a 2002 survey, only five percent of respondents said they would choose to pay for 

shipping to mail their computers in for recycling. If free shipping were offered, the 

percentage of respondents choosing this method increased to 20 percent.35

Other Collection Sites 

Other collection site possibilities exist as well, such as electronic repair shops, haulers, 

private recyclers, or charities, where electronics often end up at or near their end of life. For 

example, Snohomish County in Washington State used a network of 14 small electronics 

retailers in their collection program. 

Flexibility 

Legislation can mandate collection points, as a number do. One drawback of mandating 

collection points is that it can restrict flexibility for the local community to decide what best 

serves its needs. Some retailers, as mentioned above, may not necessarily be able to serve as 

collection points, while others may benefit from doing so. Non-profits, such as Goodwill, 

may be more convenient for consumers in some communities. Some communities may be 

willing and able to have the local government’s solid waste division act as primary collector 

and some may not. Maine’s sparsely populated areas will be served by one-day collection 

events, in which the collection site may be the back of a truck trailer. The State of Colorado’s 

Office of Energy Management and Conservation relies on local government to manage ewaste. Where local government has not been able to afford to fully bear the costs, local 

businesses have often stepped up in partnership with local governments. The State of 

Colorado supports national strategies that favor public-private sector cooperation that 

encourage entrepreneurial efforts. 

Transportation to Consolidator/Recycler 

Collected product must be transported from the collection point to a consolidator or recycler. 

The consolidator may also be the recycler, and the consolidator may also serve as the public 

collection point. As mentioned before, since televisions and computers are bulky and must be 

carefully prepared, shipping and handling costs are very high relative to most other 

 

34 HP (www.hp.com) and Dell (www.dell.com), November 2004. 

35 SoundStats for Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation, Public Opinion Research on Electronics 

Recycling, August 2002, www.prrbiz.com/WCRC_Report2.pdf. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 25

recyclables. Therefore, it is likely to be more cost efficient to minimize transportation costs 

by locating recycling centers locally or regionally if the volume is sufficient. 

Recycling 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted by Congress in 1976, gave 

EPA the authority to control disposal of solid and hazardous waste by large businesses and 

organizations. Residential waste is exempt from Federal hazardous waste regulations; 

however residential non-hazardous waste does have restrictions through the state solid waste 

regulations. In general, materials classified as hazardous waste, such as CRTs disposed of by 

a commercial source or large organization, face additional restrictions that increase the cost 

of handling and recycling. To encourage recycling, particularly of e-waste generated by 

commercial sources, the EPA proposed to conditionally exclude CRTs from hazardous waste 

regulation, provided that the CRTs were managed in certain ways. This proposed 

exemption36 would allow recyclers to transport CRTs in common carriers, accumulate larger 

quantities, and hold them without obtaining hazardous waste permits. EPA has used the 

Universal Waste rule to encourage recycling of other products, such as batteries. EPA’s 2002 

proposed rule on CRTs received considerable comment. (RCRA, the Universal Waste rule 

and the case of batteries are discussed in detail in the Appendices.) 

There is an existing infrastructure of recyclers working with electronic products globally and 

in the United States. The Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) has 1,200 member 

companies, 200 of which are involved with electronics recycling. The International 

Association of Electronics Recyclers claims over 100 member organizations in 15 countries. 

Scrap recyclers process around 125 million tons of materials a year on a wide variety of 

products.37 Recycler is a catch-phrase for a company providing a number of different services 

and processes. Consolidators and recyclers engage in asset management. First, they perform 

a triage on products received, not just electronic equipment, sorting products into ones that 

can be reused or refurbished, then sending the rest to be demanufactured into component 

parts that can be resold, and then processed further into individual commodities, such as 

ferrous, non-ferrous, plastics, glass, and metals. A consolidator or recycler would also be a 

logical party to sort the product into brands to either count how much of each brand is being 

recycled in a year (information that might be used to determine each producers’ share of the 

recycling costs) or, at an additional cost, to sort by brand in order to return product to the 

original producer. Brand sorting is time consuming. (One of the commentors opined that 

future use of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags at the product level will greatly 

decrease the time and costs involved in brand sorting, making it a more viable option.) 

The opportunity for profitability in reuse and refurbishment of electronic products and in 

selling components increases as volumes increase38 and as the age of the products decrease. 

Computers and televisions that are under five to seven years old discarded by commercial 

 

36 The final rule is expected in 2006. Check www.epa.gov/ for the final rule. 37 Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, TA Roundtable transcript, September 21, 2004, p. 26. 

38 Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, TA Roundtable transcript, September 21, 2004, p. 62-63, 113. 
Technology Administration 

26 Recycling Technology Products

entities or large organizations may have reuse value and usually represent a large amount of 

uniform or similar products or models so recyclers can realize economies of scale in selling 

for reuse, refurbishing, or recycling. Often, when a business replaces its computer equipment, 

the new vendor will arrange for proper management of the old equipment and includes those 

costs in the contract. 

Equipment that cannot be reused as is or cannot be refurbished for resale is slated for scrap. 

The computer or television is broken into component parts. The plastic casing of a personal 

computer, for example, can be removed and the plastic can be shredded and used for other 

purposes; the circuitry can be broken into components that can be reused and resold; and 

metals that are left can be separated, smelted, and sold. Often the plastic and metals are 

melted together in a metals recovery process where the plastics are consumed in the smelting 

adding some minimal BTU value to the smelting. Much of the plastic in e-waste has 

significant embedded energy and could be burned to create energy in waste-to-energy plants, 

but given the presence of flame retardants in certain returned plastic parts and the difficulty 

in generating a pure plastic input stream this is not a common end use market for e-waste at 

this time. Some components may be sent to other recyclers or subcontractors who specialize 

in that particular material. But, the use of precious metals and other valuable materials that 

were worth recovering is decreasing due to substitutions by manufacturers of other 

substances with new and better connectivity. Lead and mercury use in products is declining 

due to environmental concerns and bans on these substances. 

Once the leaded glass in the CRT or television screen is removed from the plastic casing, it 

can either be reused whole in another CRT or television, smelted, or broken into small pieces 

to be processed. Large commercial manufacturers of CRTs have mostly moved overseas thus 

greatly reducing any market in the United States for reuse of CRTs. There is still a market 

overseas for reuse of CRTs. Disassembling the CRT unit, transporting the heavy glass, and 

cleaning the glass before it can be returned to the manufacturing process adds significantly to 

the costs for reuse of the glass. 39 If it is not economically feasible to reuse the CRT glass or 

there is no market for that size of CRT screen, the glass is sent to either a smelter or a 

reprocessor that crushes it, or it enters the waste stream, i.e. goes to an incinerator or landfill. 

Some of the large reprocessors and smelters are charging fees to take the CRT glass because 

they cannot profitably process it.40

The business models for residential e-waste have proved less successful than for commercial 

e-waste.41 Homeowners tend to keep electronics long past the time in which they would have 

any value for resale. While commercial e-waste is generally in working condition, residential 

electronics are often too old or broken to be of much use. Some researchers estimate that 

nearly 75 percent of old electronics are in storage as consumers hoard them, feeling that they 

may still have value and being uncertain of how to dispose of them. Research in California 

has found that residents who store computers and televisions store an average of 1.4 of each 

 

39 Panasonic, TA Roundtable transcript p. 31. 

40 Interview with Unicor, June 15, 2006. 

41 Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, TA Roundtable transcript, September 21, 2004, p. 62-63. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 27

item.42 A 2003 survey in King County, Washington, found that 25 percent of households 

reported storing at least one computer no longer in use, and 16 percent reported storing a 

television.43 Hoarding is a potential problem in the establishment of a recycling system 

because older or historic waste has little recycling value and contains more orphan products. 

Televisions in the waste stream tend to be 15-17 years old and computers 6-10 years old. 

Roughly half of the televisions collected during a 1999 recycling demonstration project were 

manufactured before 1980. Because televisions take longer to show up in the waste stream, 

they have a much lower possibility for refurbishment/resale and therefore cost more to 

recycle relative to computers. The underlying material stream is also much older and less 

likely to be recyclable, such as wood on console televisions or plastic that imitates wood. The 

CRTs in televisions are larger than those in computers. Televisions have less metal which 

can be smelted and reused, and they have no valuable components that can be separated and 

reused. Older televisions have capacitors containing regulated polycholorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs)—known carcinogens—which were phased out of televisions in the late 1970s and 

early 1980s. Materials such as these in older products make disassembly more difficult and 

increase the costs of properly managing products at end-of-life.44 In addition, mixed e-waste, 

such as that received from residential consumers, requires special handling and the costs 

exceed the market value of the scrap. It cannot be processed profitably and in an 

environmentally sound manner without additional funds to cover the costs. 

A recycling system in which resources are conserved and reused is easier with new products 

that are designed for that purpose. Many stakeholders have concluded that historic products 

with high recycling costs need to be flushed out of the system, which is the purpose of many 

current collection programs including special one-day or one-time-only collection events. 

Office Depot and HP collected and recycled 10.5 million pounds of e-waste in a Plug-In to 

eCycling pilot program in 2004, while other Plug-In to eCycling pilot programs collected 

hundreds of thousands of pounds.45

Export of E-waste 

Much e-waste has been sent overseas for recycling because it is more costly to recycle in the 

United States and most consumer electronics manufacturers (who provide the market for 

materials recovered from recycled electronics) have moved overseas. For example, almost all 

glass manufacturers that may reuse CRTs are located overseas. A 2002 report estimated that 

between 50 to 80 percent of the wastes collected for recycling are not recycled domestically 

but are exported to other countries.46 According to the Polymer Alliance Zone of West 

 

42 California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Electronic Product Management website, What is 

E-Waste? http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Electronics/WhatisEwaste/, March 2004. 43 Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. and Sound Resolutions, King County Solid Waste Division 2003 Survey as 

reported in E-Waste Generation in Northwest Washington, November 21, 2003, p. 7. 

44 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Recycling Used Electronics: Report on Minnesota’s 

Demonstration Project, July 2001, http://www.moea.state.mn.us/plugin/report.cfm. 45 See Appendix IV. 

46 Exporting Harm, Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, February 2002, 

http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf. 
Technology Administration 

28 Recycling Technology Products

Virginia, most participants in the electronics recycling industry cite export to Asia as the 

most common management practice for U.S. plastic scrap from end-of-life electronics, often 

through brokered arrangements.47

Five states have banned the disposal of CRTs in landfills and incinerators within their 

borders, forcing these products to be recycled, disposed of outside of the state, or exported. 

The states have no control over e-waste transported outside of their borders. As of the writing 

of this report, the Federal Government does not control the export of most electronic scrap 

either, for while controls exist on the export of hazardous waste, many electronics are not 

classified as hazardous waste (either because they do not fail hazardous waste tests or are not 

yet considered waste, e.g., they are reusable as is or the materials represent salable 

commodities). Several environmental groups maintain that efforts by states and by EPA to 

regulate the disposal of electronics and create a recycling infrastructure or market-driven 

industry can be undercut if e-waste can be exported to entities that do not enforce 

environmentally sound waste management. Recyclers respond that outlawing the export of ewaste completely could deprive the industry of flexibility or end-markets since it may be 

more cost effective to recycle some products overseas where much of electronics 

manufacturing and assembly are centered and where there may be larger markets for older 

technology and materials. 

Reducing Recycling Costs 

Some stakeholders have suggested ways to bring down the costs of processing electronics 

while maintaining environmental standards. One is to improve economies of scale through 

increased volume. Exempting e-waste from restrictive hazardous and solid waste regulations 

and reclassifying it would also lower costs. Several industry players commented that an 

effective way to reduce recycling costs is to provide the recycling industry with the flexibility 

to manage e-waste on a national and international basis by harmonizing standards for 

managing e-waste. Another way is to redesign products to improve the ease of dismantling, 

reuse, and recycling. 

Most discussions in electronics recycling revolve around DfE, a process to change product 

design in order to make it more environmentally friendly, or DfR, a process to introduce 

changes to product design in order to make products more easily recyclable. For example, 

Matsushita (Panasonic) reduced the number of polystyrene resin grades from 20 to 4 making 

sorting during disassembly easier. In 2000, Dell introduced a new line of OptiFrameTM 

chassis, the OptiPlex GX150, which contains fewer screws for easier upgrading and 

disassembly. The economic benefits of designing products that are more easily reused, 

refurbished, and broken down into reusable components and recycled materials take a long 

time to be realized. As mentioned earlier, televisions in the waste stream tend to be 15-17 

years old and computers 6-10 years old. Given the long pay back period, introducing design 

changes does not provide much short-term financial incentive unless coupled with an 

external stimulus. The changes mentioned above can lower costs, but would be much more 

 

47 Interview with Buddy Graham and Walter Alcorn, Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia, January 21, 

2005. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 29

effective if undertaken across industry. Arguably none of the different financing systems 

discussed widely to date provide direct financial incentives for DfR. 

Hypothetically, once product coverage is determined making it clear which producers are 

affected by the recycling program, and if the recycling plan calls for producers to increase the 

recyclability of their product, or if producers are paying for recycling, there are incentives for 

producers to work together to jointly develop designs that reduce recycling costs. For 

example: making plastic casings easier to remove by minimizing the number of fasteners and 

the number of tools needed for disassembly; reducing the number and types of materials used 

and standardizing the types of plastic resins used; and using molded-in colors and finishes 

instead of paint, coatings, or plating whenever possible.48

Another way to affect design changes is for government to mandate them. Legislation has 

been used to mandate DfE changes to make products more environmentally friendly and 

resource conserving. For example, the EU and California both mandated design changes by 

banning certain substances. Many industry and government representatives believe that it is 

unnecessary for the United States at the Federal level or the state level to include explicit 

proscriptions for design in any comprehensive recycling program, in particular banning 

potential dangerous substances, since the RoHS Directive in the EU, coupled with the 

California law, are already effecting a global change in design. Their argument is that 

electronics is such a global industry with a global supply chain that all manufacturers and 

suppliers will make sure that their products, no matter for what other markets they are 

destined, will meet the RoHS Directive in order to assure that their products meet the 

requirements of the European market.49 This may be the case, but it should be noted that 

some of the fastest growing PC and consumer electronics manufacturing and end-use markets 

are outside of the EU and United States. 

Federal procurement requirements can also be used as a leverage to change. The Federal 

Government, for example, has voluntary programs now that Federal agencies can choose to 

join, such as the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the EPEAT, both designed for 

implementation initially in the federal procurement process but also intended for use by other 

institutional purchasers. The government can also develop incentives in the private sector for 

DfE through programs that reward environmentally friendly design, such as EPEAT, Energy 

Star, DfE Program, and the Green Suppliers Network, described elsewhere in this report. 

One of the drawbacks of mandating very specific design changes is the inability to predict 

their effects over time or measure precisely the economic costs and benefits. For example, 

requiring the elimination of certain substances without knowing what substitutes will be 

utilized can result in unintended consequences. New studies and data are produced 

continuously, providing new insight into the environmental and human health effects of 

materials and chemicals utilized in production. New products may seem more easily 

recyclable, resource conservative, or environmentally friendly, but may not be when 

 

48 Plastics Resource Council, Plastics from Residential Electronics Recycling-Report 2000, April 2000, p.12. 49 TA Roundtable Transcript, p. 103. 
Technology Administration 

30 Recycling Technology Products

considering the environment as an integrated and global system. Any system of product 

design requirements or incentives must be structured to evolve quickly to incorporate new 

data and understanding of product design and its consequences for human health and the 

environment. One major complaint of U.S. industry is that it has had insufficient input into 

the development and decision-making of government design mandates and should be fully 

engaged in these discussions. 

Prison Labor 

Many organizations commented that recycling services by prison labor should be outlawed or 

that the laborers should be paid minimum wage. Recyclers cited unfair competition from 

Federal Prison Industries or Unicor. These commentors see Unicor as an impediment to 

creating a competitive electronics recycling market since its low labor rates keep prices 

down, reducing the incentive for private companies to enter the market. Unicor is a Federal 

Government corporation established by Congress in 1934 to employ and provide job training 

skills to prison inmates. It is self-sustaining and receives no appropriation from Congress. 

The inmates are paid, but receive less than minimum wage. 

Unicor recycled 46 million pounds of electronics scrap in fiscal year 2004. The vast majority 

was used electronics from the Federal Government, schools, and non-profits, but also 

included residential scrap, mainly from one-day municipal recycling events. Unicor estimates 

is recycles one percent or less of total electronics recycled in the United States; yet in terms 

of CRTs, Unicor believes that it is one of the largest CRT recyclers in the United States. It 

recycled 4.8 million pounds of CRTs alone in fiscal year 2004. 

Not all comments about Unicor were negative. The Indiana Recycling Coalition sees benefits 

in partnerships with prison labor programs, but stated that these partnerships should focus on 

providing service that cannot be provided cost effectively in the private sector. It should be 

noted that some communities and non-profits also run electronics recycling shops as job 

training programs where some trainees may not be paid minimum wage.50 In addition, 

Unicor has agreements with over 300 private recyclers for taking secondary used product, 

particularly CRTs, after the private recycler has broken down the unit and extracted some 

materials, assumably the most valuable materials. Unicor believes that it is part of the 

solution and complements the private sector recycling effort because it gets the most difficult 

and least valuable materials to recycle from the private sector recyclers and can cost 

effectively and in an environmentally proper manner provide recycling and refurbishing 

activities here in the United States, providing an alternative to sending e-waste overseas. 

Because of Unicor’s low costs, it can afford to refurbish product that private recyclers 

cannot, thus it has a higher reuse and refurbishment rate. 

Financing Collection, Transportation, and Recycling 

There are a number of ways to finance a recycling program. NEPSI looked extensively at an 

array of possible models and combinations thereof, a number of which are described under 

 

50 For example, Goodwill Industries runs job training programs, some of which may pay minimum wage and 

some of which may not. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 31

the NEPSI section of the report. The Technology Administration does not take a position 

supporting any particular financing system. This document reports how various financing 

systems can be structured, reports how similar systems already in operation have been 

critiqued, and relays the analysis and comments of stakeholders on the advantages and 

disadvantages of various systems. Below is a discussion of the models most commonly used 

in e-recycling and recycling programs for other products and arguments presented by 

stakeholders both for and against these models. 

General Tax Base Funding 

The general tax base model is, compared to other approaches, relatively simple: an additional 

tax would be imposed at the state or national level to fund the state or national electronics 

recycling effort. The collected tax could fund the entire recycling process or just a piece of 

it—such as the collection and transportation to a consolidator or recycler—or it could change 

over time. As long as the tax was not applied at the point of sale, the general tax base model 

would remove the issue of creating a level playing field with Internet sales. This model has 

been easily and quickly implemented by locales to fund e-waste collection and/or recycling. 

Denmark has used a local household waste tax to fund local authority collection, transport, 

and recycling of waste electronics and electrical products. Other countries in Europe such as 

the Netherlands and Norway have used municipal taxes to finance just local authority 

collection and/or municipal collection. These levels of tax vary by municipality.51

The general tax base model shifts the responsibility from specific consumers of these 

electronic goods and others in the product stewardship chain to all taxpayers. This financing 

system has no product stewardship or shared responsibility embedded in its design. Some 

stakeholders assert that financing through taxes provides no incentive to maximize recycling 

infrastructure efficiencies and gives producers no responsibility or incentives to design with 

the environment in mind. In addition, the taxes would be collected and held by the 

government. Critics point out that the government-collected taxes going into a general fund 

could be spent for other purposes than to fund the recycling system, a not uncommon practice 

for user fees. Finally, to implement this model on a Federal level would require that Congress 

levy the taxes. 

Government grants or tax incentives to encourage the development of a recycling 

infrastructure is another mode of general tax base funding, if the funds come from the general 

fund, since all citizens pay for the recycling, not just the stakeholders. One report estimates 

that a grant program to encourage the development of a collection and recycling 

infrastructure in all 50 states might cost about $10 million annually.52 This estimate is 

extrapolated from a Massachusetts grant program for $800,000 in FY 1999-FY 2002 to each 

of the state’s 351 cities and towns for the first year in which they collected e-waste. Actual 

costs for a full-fledged recycling program would probably run much higher, according to 

officials in Snohomish County, Washington, where vendor costs alone for just the public 

 

51 Department of Trade and Industry, Study into European WEEE Schemes, November 20, 2003, p. 46. 52 James E. McCarthy, Recycling Computers and Electronic Equipment: Legislative and Regulatory 

Approaches for “E-Waste”, Congressional Research Service, November 5, 2003. 
Technology Administration 

32 Recycling Technology Products

sector portion of that County’s recycling system were $218,000 for 2004 with a population of 

640,000, amounting to $0.34 per person.53

End-of-Life Fees 

End-of-Life (EOL) fees are defined as a cost paid by the end-user at the point of discard for 

the electronic device. EOL fees are presently collected for electronics in some regions of the 

country. The collection of EOL fees does not necessarily require legislation. According to 

commentors, the greatest benefits of EOL fees are that they provide immediate financing for 

a recycling system, pay for orphan products that are returned and for which a fee is paid, and 

the financing costs are paid by the consumer and not the taxpayer. Some also argue that the 

EOL fee provides an incentive to extend the life of electronic devices. An EOL fee program 

could encourage the development of market-driven recycling as collectors compete for 

consumers’ products, thereby bringing down the fee. Further, some claim that an EOL fee 

could create the opportunity for producers to compete with traditional recyclers to collect and 

recycle end-of-life electronic products, and may thus encourage design-for-environment. 

Other points supporting the EOL are that it provides flexibility as to the collection centers 

since the financial incentive of the EOL fee encourages a diversity of organizations to 

become collection centers, thus obviating the need to mandate retailer participation. 

Tire disposal in some states is financed through an EOL fee. Some commercial 

establishments have requirements on how to dispose of or recycle tires and, in turn, charge 

customers an EOL fee to cover their costs. The EOL fee is managed individually by the 

dealers; the fee is not sent to a TPO or the state, but covers the dealers own costs in properly 

disposing of the tires. 

Orphan Products 

The number of brands in today’s electronics waste stream is large. A study in Florida 

identified 111 brands of televisions, 295 brands of monitors and 221 brands of desktops in the 

waste stream there.54 A pilot project of discarded household electronics in Minnesota found 

that 47 percent of collected televisions were manufactured before 1980 and 15 percent, 

representing 70 different brands, were orphan products, i.e., the manufacturer is no longer in 

business nor a successor identified.55 Many of the companies that are still in the market have a 

very small market share now. So-called “white box” or no-name products that are put together 

by component assemblers without a brand name are also a problem because it is hard to know 

who to assess financial liability against in a financing system that involves the manufacturers. 

Paying for the proper recycling and disposal of orphan products is a consideration in the 

various financing systems discussed here. 

Japan has used a system where retailers collected an EOL fee from consumer for appliances 

including televisions, which covered collection and transport costs as well as recycling costs 

imposed by the manufacturer. Some speculated that manufacturers there would seek to set 

their fees as low as possible to improve their competitive advantage and it would result in 

 

53 Sego Jackson, Snohomish County Solid Waste Division, Washington State, March 2005 

54 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Electronic Product Brand Distribution Project,

January 2005, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/electronics/pages/FloridaElectronicProductBrand 

DistributionProject.htm (10 January 2005). 

55 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Recycling Used Electronics: Report on Minnesota’s 

Demonstration Project, July 2001, p. 8, http://www.moea.state.mn.us/plugin/ElectronicsReport.pdf. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 33

manufacturers absorbing the costs of recycling to remain competitive with low EOL fees, 

however, the leading electric appliance manufacturers all set the same recycling fee for each 

appliance.56 (For personal computers purchased after October 1, 2003, the cost of recycling is 

included in the cost of the product in Japan.57) Belgium also has used EOL fees along with an 

ARF to finance its national system. 

Some people believe that U.S. culture may not be conducive to EOL fees. According to those 

who have managed recycling programs, a major drawback of an EOL fee is that the prospect 

of having to pay a fee can discourage consumer participation and encourage illegal dumping. 

As such, the system would require an enforcement infrastructure from the government and 

may provide only limited incentives for lowering fees over time. Some Maine municipalities 

found that EOL fees discouraged returns of electronics and resulted in illegal roadside 

dumping, although within Maine’s hybrid financing system some localities continue to 

charge EOL fees.

Wooster, Massachusetts, also found that EOL fees led to dumping, so it stopped charging its 

residents a fee. (Many other local governments in Massachusetts continue to charge an EOL 

fee, however.) In a 2002 survey of residents of King County, Washington, it was found that 

when faced with a $20 fee to recycle an old computer system, 34 percent of the respondents 

said they would store their computer at home instead of paying the fee. Another 4 percent 

admitted that they would put it in the garbage illegally.58 Local governments in Oregon also 

found the EOL fees created illegal dumping situations:59 There have been cases of supposed 

recyclers stockpiling and abandoning the collected electronics in a warehouse while 

absconding with the fees. 

Others point out that EOL fees are also innately regressive.60 Electronics products may have 

many owners as products are reused, refurbished and resold, so this fee would fall to the final 

user, often the lowest-income consumer or a charity, to fund the majority of the recycling 

system. For example, many Goodwill locations will not accept television or computer 

donations any longer because of the high cost of disposing of these products. Goodwill 

Industries estimated it was receiving 200,000 computers a year in 2004, but only 15 percent 

were reusable, so it had to pay to dispose of the rest of them. Disposal costs are driven in 

large part by tipping fees (i.e. the cost paid for unloading a truckload of scrap at a landfill) 

which can be quite high; for example, California tipping fees were up to $85 a ton in 2004.61

 

56 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, “‘Greening’ of Electronics Product Design: A Brief Summary of Government 

and Private Initiatives,” p. 5, March 26, 2002. 

57 Inform, PC Recycling in Japan, February 2004, http://www.informinc.org/fact_JapanPC.pdf (13 June 2006). 58 Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation comments in Appendix VII and 

www.prrbiz.com/WCRC_Report2.pdf. 

59 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality comments in Appendix VII. 

60 Patrick Daniere, Goodwill Industries, presentation at E-Scrap 2004: The North American Electronics 

Recycling Conference, October 20, 2004. 

61 Patrick Daniere, Goodwill Industries, and Neal Road Landfill Annual Report June 8, 2004, 

http://www.buttecounty.net/publicworks/solidwaste/2004_Annual%20_Report.pdf. 
Technology Administration 

34 Recycling Technology Products

Deposit and Refund 

The deposit/refund system is used with beverage containers in certain states in the United 

States and in Canada. Alberta has an 80 percent recovery rate for beverage containers using a 

deposit/refund system. The consumer makes a deposit at the time of purchase of a new 

product and receives a refund upon returning the used container. The refund would be less 

than the deposit, thus funding the system. The refund provides an incentive to consumers to 

return the product. It encourages scavenging to recover product that has been thrown away or 

improperly disposed. A deposit/refund system could be managed either by the government or 

an industry-sponsored TPO under a legislatively-authorized system; the e-waste could either 

be sent directly to recyclers or returned to producers to process. It could incorporate 

incentives for DfR by varying the deposit and refund depending on how easy the product is 

to recycle, although this would complicate the administration of the program and increase 

transaction costs, particularly for collection centers. 

Some people believe this would be an inappropriate model for electronics since electronics 

are held for years, as opposed to bottles and cans that are returned within weeks; the deposit 

might be too small compared to the total purchase price to provide an incentive to return it; 

and bottles and cans are a single material that can be reused almost directly whereas 

electronics are not. A deposit/refund model also requires a transaction at both the front-end 

and back-end, thus doubling the transaction costs. This system would require the mandatory 

participation of all electronic retailers to charge the deposit fee. Usually the return is made to 

the point-of-purchase in other deposit/refund systems, which would mean all electronic 

retailers might have to be collection centers and give refunds; but it is possible to encourage 

other collection centers and not mandate retailers as designated collection centers. 

Table 1: Examples of ARF charged in the United States and Europe (in Euros)62 

Country ARF Range 

The Netherlands €3-8 

Belgium €0.1-9 

Switzerland €10-20 

California (U.S.) $6-10 

Advance Recovery Fees (ARF) 

A front-end fee, specifically an advance recovery fee or advance recycling fee (ARF)—

sometimes called an advance disposal fee (ADF)—requires that the consumer pay a fee upfront 

at the point of purchase to fund a recycling program. An ARF is usually a visible fee separately 

listed underneath the sales price. It can be imposed and managed by the government, industry, 

and/or a TPO (given legislative authorization). The two greatest benefits claimed by ARF 

supporters are that 1) it provides an immediate, reliable, and sustainable source of funding for 

the entire recycling system and 2) it pays for the recycling of all returned products—including 

orphans—obviating the need to determine the brand ownership of returned products. The 

 

62Examples of ARFs are from 2003 or earlier. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 35

concept is also touted as easy for consumers to grasp, and it can relieve the local recycling 

participation in the same manner as an EOL fee might. It is possible the fee may decrease over 

time, as the recycling market improves and unit costs decrease. According to some 

commentors, charging a fee at the point of sale also provides an educational opportunity for the 

consumer as well as for the sales representative to remind the consumer about proper recycling 

for both new and old products. A 2002 survey found that 71 percent of respondents would 

prefer that prepaid recycling costs be included in the retail cost of the product, as opposed to an 

EOL fee or mail back program. If a pre-paid recycling fee of $15 were added to the cost of a 

television, 86 percent of respondents said they would still buy it.63

According to comments from the Electronic Manufacturers/Coalition for Responsible 

Recycling, an ARF-based recycling system provides for shared responsibility between 

manufacturers, government, retailers, recyclers, and the consumer. In this organization’s 

vision, the manufacturers would manage the recycling system through a TPO, collect the fee 

on their own direct sales, and provide recycling information to customers through product 

literature and on web sites. Manufacturers would also improve product design by complying 

with the EU’s RoHS Directive, participate in the creation of an environmental purchasing 

label, and assist recyclers with information on product features that affect end-of-life 

management. The Coalition document does not describe the responsibility of other 

stakeholders but clearly the consumer pays the ARF, thus directly financing the entire 

system. As proposed by this manufacturers’ industry coalition, the retailers collect the bulk 

Collection Incentive Payment (CIP) 

Collection incentive payment (CIP) is a payment to organizations that provide a collection 

service in order to encourage them to collect e-waste. The concept was developed in the 

NEPSI process to develop a mechanism to encourage and finance collection activities through 

a front end financing system such as an ARF or producer responsibility. The CIP only pays 

for the cost of collection and perhaps shipment to a consolidator or recycler, but does not pay 

for processing or recycling the scrap. According to commentors, the CIP provides financial 

security at a minimum, if it covers the cost of collection, and a financial incentive, if the CIP 

exceeds collection costs. The concept developed through NEPSI was that collectors would be 

compensated with a CIP by the Third Party Organization or entity managing the overall 

national system from the front-end fees collected at the time of product purchase. To most 

effectively manage the CIP and to avoid complexities, bureaucracy and abuse, it was thought 

that the likely way a CIP would be administered would be through the processors contracted 

to process e-waste: the processors would be provided with a per pound pass-through to 

collectors to create an incentive for the collectors. 

A CIP could increase the number and variety of collection points and allow greater flexibility 

for the wide variety of local communities to find the best solution. It releases local 

governments from unfunded mandates and retailers from mandated one-size-fits all solutions. 

It allows charities to aggressively collect electronics and cherry pick those items that can be 

profitably resold to support their programs. A number of comments received echoed the same 

recommendations that NEPSI had agreed to, which is that no entity should be required to 

provide collection, but a payment system should be established making it beneficial and 

desirable for many entities to do so: any entity that meets the standards set to provide 

collection services to customers should be eligible to receive the CIP. 

 

63 Public Opinion Research on Electronics Recycling, SoundStats for Washington Citizens for Resource 

Conservation, August 2002, www.prrbiz.com/WCRC_Report2.pdf. 
Technology Administration 

36 Recycling Technology Products

of the fees at the point of sale, and the retailers and the government may act as collection 

points, probably collecting a collection incentive payment (CIP) financed by the ARF. The 

recyclers receive a set amount per pound to recycle scrap, financed by the ARF. 

Any ARF would have to be great enough in scope to fund recycling of all returned products 

(including orphans), making today’s consumers fund recycling for historic products as well 

as present products. Perhaps more so than other financing systems an ARF also presents a 

potential problem with Internet sales. If the fee is not applied to all Internet sales, there is 

concern that consumers would abandon traditional retailers and mainly buy products online 

to avoid the fee. While few televisions are currently purchased online, a very high percentage 

of personal computers and peripherals are. In the 2002 survey mentioned above, however, 

only eight percent of respondents said they would buy over the Internet to avoid the fee.64

California operates an ARF recycling system and believes it is capturing the fees on Internet 

sales.65

Internet Sales and Foreign Producers 

States cannot enforce compliance on companies that sell into their state over the Internet but 

do not have a nexus or physical presence in the state. States cannot enforce the collection of a 

fee on sellers, such as an advanced recovery fee, if the seller has no physical presence in the 

state but sells over the Internet. In California, the Board of Equalization issued an opinion in 

November 2004 on its website for the Electronic Waste Recycling Fee that says “Out-of-state 

sellers who are not required to hold a California seller's permit or are not obligated to collect 

California use tax are not presently required to collect the fee. Consumers who buy from those 

retailers owe the fee to the state. Out-of-state retailers who are not required to collect the fee 

may voluntarily register to collect the fee as a courtesy to their customers. That voluntary 

registration, by itself, does not make the retailer obligated to collect California use tax.”66

Given the growing number of electronic sales over the Internet, this could provide a 

significant loophole for companies to avoid paying the ARF. International Data Group (IDC) 

estimated that 21 percent of PC sales were over the Internet in the U.S. market in 2004. Of 

that amount, eight percent were “whitebox” sales or non-brand sales.67

Similarly, states can have difficulty enforcing various aspects of a recycling system, such as 

fees, membership in a TPO, or product design change on producers from outside the country. 

They can legislate that no product can be sold in their state unless the manufacturer meets 

certain requirements, but enforcement would present a challenge. 

An ARF system as proposed by the Electronic Manufacturers/Coalition for Responsible 

Recycling makes participation by product sellers to collect the ARF mandatory, regardless of 

their size. Some retailers oppose an ARF at the point of sale. Retailers are concerned about 

administration of a fee, the customers’ reaction to a fee, the need for sales people to explain a 

sliding scale fee on only some products, and the difficulty of enforcement to ensure that all 

retailers charge the fee beyond large national/regional chains. A variation of this ARF is 

proposed by Radio Shack which recommends a fee assessed on the manufacturer for all of its 

 

64 Public Opinion Research on Electronics Recycling, SoundStats for Washington Citizens for Resource 

Conservation, August 2002, www.prrbiz.com/WCRC_Report2.pdf. 

65 Interview with Matt McCarron, California Integrated Waste Management Board, June 14, 2006. 

66 California State Board of Equalization website www.boe.ca.gov questions on electronic waste, referenced 

Publication 77, Do You Need to Register in California? For Out-of-State Sellers, November 2001, (November 

2004). 67 IDC, U.S. PC Tracker, Consumer PC Sales and the Internet Channel, March 2005. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 37

covered products if full manufacturer responsibility is not an option: “A visible Advance 

Recovery Fee (“ARF”) at the point of sale to the consumer in reality offers no advantage 

over a fee on the manufacturer.” Radio Shack further states that a visible ARF at point of sale 

is a very distant second choice (Radio Shack’s emphasis), “ONLY IF a truly preemptive 

Federal solution is possible so that there is ONE rate nationwide on covered products and 

retailers are compensated for the costs of collecting and remitting. The single rate should be 

under $10. ALL sellers should collect and remit on all sales to end users, whether Internet, 

catalog, brick & mortar, commercial, or consumer. No sales to end users whatsoever should 

be exempted from the fee.”68

An ARF system does not necessarily provide any incentive to producers to design for 

environment (DfE) or design for recycling (DfR). But incentives for DfR could be 

incorporated into the system via a partial refund or other form of reward for producers whose 

products cost less to recycle or demonstrate one or more other environmental benefits. This 

would require further administrative mechanisms. In the Electronic Manufacturers/Coalition 

for Responsible Recycling scenario, the design incentive is the RoHS mandate. 

There are numerous ways an ARF could be incorporated into a recycling system. For 

example, in the California legislation, the ARF (called an “electronic waste recycling fee”) is 

used to finance the entire recycling system from collection through to recycling. Orphan 

products are included with all others in recycling. Under this system, the state government 

pays the recyclers directly. Critics of the California system argue that the producer has no 

real responsibility for recycling or any associated incentive to design for recycling. Critics 

also argue that this system may not provide much incentive to recyclers to bring costs down. 

California’s experience so far has been that the ARF does not cover the cost of recycling. 

California’s average ARF is $8.00; eighty-seven percent of the covered devices fall into the 

size range for an $8 ARF. The state pays the collectors/recyclers $0.48 per pound. The 

weight of the average CRT is about 33-35 pounds, so the average per unit reimbursement to 

the recycler is $16.00.69 The state has the ability to adjust the fee and the payment rates in the 

future. 

Table 2: California Electronic Waste Recycling Fee70 

CRT Screen Size ARF 

Greater than 4” and less than 15” $6 

Greater than or equal to 15”and 

less than 35” 

$8 

Greater than or equal to 35” $10

 

68 Radio Shack comments in Appendix VII. 

69 California Integrated Waste Management Board, June 16, 2006. 

70 California Integrated Waste Management Board, see http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Electronics/Act2003, (21 

June 2006). 
Technology Administration 

38 Recycling Technology Products

Variations of an ARF-financed system abound. For example, an ARF could be collected and 

managed by a third party organization (TPO) representing the producers and used to finance 

the entire recycling system. In this instance, the consumers provide all the funds and the 

producers, while they manage the system through the TPO, would have no direct DfE or DfR 

or cost incentives without use of a sliding scale or legislative design mandates. Orphan 

products would be included with all others in recycling. 

As another example, an ARF could be used to finance just the collection and transportation to 

a consolidator or recycler. The producers could have full responsibility for managing and 

financing the actual recycling and receive no portion of the ARF. Under this model, most of 

the ARF would be used to finance collection incentive payments (CIP) to encourage 

organizations to act as collection points and to reimburse collection points for their costs. It 

could be managed either by the government or by a TPO made up of producers. Producers 

would be responsible for the recycling so would have to decide among themselves how to 

split the e-waste recycling costs among members and how to finance the recycling of orphan 

products. Under the California system, the guaranteed payment of $0.48 per pound to 

collectors/recyclers did incent new entrants to the market. In January 2005, California had 96 

collects and 20 recyclers. By June 2006, it had 410 collectors and 46 recyclers.71

Belgium is an example of a country with a TPO, called Recupel, that collects and recycles 

products on behalf of producers and importers. This system is viewed by many as successful 

because Recupel has achieved wide participation from producers and importers in the 

country, which consisted of 1,826 affiliations and 1,134 members in 2003.72 Recupel has 

obtained this high participation because it invests heavily in monitoring and reporting and 

operates a register of companies dealing with electrical goods so that it can provide the 

names of noncompliant companies to the authorities.73

Regardless of how the fees from an ARF are disbursed, an ARF costs money to administer. 

Depending upon where the fee is assessed it may require a substantial administrative 

mechanism and organization for fee collection and disbursement. Critics argue that 

bureaucracies do not often lower costs, nor do monopolies—and there are no incentives to 

producers to DfR or DfE. But competition and incentives could be built into the system in 

other ways. For example, California chose to effect DfE not through economic incentives, 

but by banning the use of certain materials consistent with the European RoHS and requiring 

manufacturers to submit annual reports on design efforts and their use of hazardous 

materials. It is possible to bring down recycling costs if competition is introduced to the 

system. HP’s comments gave an example of the German Packaging Take Back system, a 

producer-financed system known as the German Green Dot System that was a monopoly 

before the summer of 2001. When it introduced competition, the cost of participation 

decreased by 30 percent. Additional changes to internal administration led to a further 

lowering of costs to the participants. 

 

71 California Integrated Waste Management Board, June 16, 2006. 

72 Recupel, Annual Report 2003, Brussels, Belgium 2003, p. 7, 

http://www.recupel.be/recupel/pdf/annualreport2003.pdf. 73 UK Department of Trade and Industry, Study into European WEEE Schemes, November 20, 2003, p. 56. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 39

Finally, implementing an ARF on a national level would require Federal legislation and the 

willingness of Congress to enact a national fee ultimately paid for by consumers. 

Producer Responsibility and Cost Internalization 

The term "extended producer responsibility" (EPR) was coined in the early 1990s to mean 

the extension of the responsibility of producers for the environmental impacts of their 

products to the entire product life cycle, and especially for their take-back, recycling, and 

disposal. EPR and “producer responsibility” are often used interchangeably. In 1996, the 

President's Council on Sustainable Development recommended an EPR policy which it 

defined much more broadly as the shared responsibility of government, consumers, and all 

industry actors in the product chain for all the environmental impacts of a product over its 

life cycle, with no emphasis on the producer's unique responsibilities or on the postconsumer stage. In practice, the term has mostly been used to describe producer 

responsibility "post-consumer"—after products have been discarded at the end of their useful 

life. As such, EPR shifts the responsibility for discarded materials that would otherwise be 

managed by local government to private industry, thereby incorporating the costs of product 

disposal or recycling into the product price of new products.74

Under the EPR model, producers can take individual responsibility or work together in 

groups by forming a single TPO or multiple TPOs to recover their own products—or at least 

their own share of products—and manage the system. Under the full cost internalization (CI) 

variant of producer responsibility, producers are responsible for all costs for collecting and 

managing recovered products. Each manufacturer can decide individually how to absorb the 

additional costs, including passing part or all of the costs on to the consumer. NEPSI also 

discussed a variant called Partial Cost Internalization (PCI), which refers to a system where 

the producers are responsible for some level of consolidation, and all processing and 

recycling, and the government is responsible for collection. 

CI and PCI differ from the ARF in a number of ways. Unlike many ARF varieties, there is no 

visible and separate fee to the consumer. The retailers do not need to create an infrastructure 

to collect and remit an ARF at point of sale, thus there is no fee collection bureaucracy. 

Depending on how the EPR/CI system is established there could be fewer transactions, thus 

lowering transaction costs. Individual companies and/or the industry TPO might have a 

material tracking and reporting requirement to demonstrate compliance with government 

producer responsibility mandates. Administratively, EPR/CI supporters claim that the 

producer responsibility model should be simpler, although critics note the additional 

requirements associated with orphan determination and responsibility allocation. 

Other major arguments made by EPR/CI supporters are that this financing mechanism 

provides 1) incentives for development of a competitive recycling industry, 2) design for 

recycling, 3) the least cost for consumers and local governments, and 4) flexibility for 

creating a variety of collection systems depending upon what works best for industry, 

retailers, and government in each locale. 

 

74 Bette K. Fishbein, EPR What does it Mean? Where is it Headed?, P2 Pollution Prevention Review Vol. 8 

1998, http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/EPR-Extended-Producer-Responsibility.htm, 17 February 2005. 
Technology Administration 

40 Recycling Technology Products

State and local governments working with the Product Stewardship Institute selected 

producer responsibility as the preferred system for state legislation. Under this financing 

framework the costs of recycling would be borne by the producers and users of the 

electronics: the producers would manage and finance the system and the consumer would 

pay whatever costs were passed through to the product price (although not necessarily at 

identical amounts from company to company as in the ARF system). The attempted NEPSI 

compromise describes a transition from ARF to producer responsibility after seven years. 

The EPR Working Group’s website75 and the Computer TakeBack Campaign website, 76

have guidelines for a national EPR program that were referenced by a number of 

commentors. 

One of the arguments made in support of the EPR model is that it incorporates the most 

direct incentives for changing the design of the product. The theory is that if companies must 

recycle their own products—and can devise a system to actually recover their own 

products—they will design them to be easier, and therefore cheaper, to recycle. DfR 

incentives, arguably, work most directly if the manufacturer must pay to process its own 

product and not that of other companies; in addition, the cost must be high enough to create 

an incentive for change. A typical recycling financing system based on producer 

responsibility charges individual producers according to a formula based on brand share of 

the e-waste collected plus a proportionate share of the orphan products. Alternatively a 

producer responsibility system might be based on a firm’s present market share. This “share” 

approach provides for administrative efficiencies and handling efficiencies, but limits the 

direct linkage to DfR since the recycling benefits for any particular brand are spread across 

all parties recycling e-waste. 

For example, the Maine system contains several EPR-like elements in which a producer 

could receive back its own used product, at an additional cost, if the consolidator sorted 

product by brand and returned it to the producers. Independent of the financing method, some 

recycling programs establish goals for collected e-waste per capita by weight, with a higher 

number each year leaving open the possibility for how this is accomplished. Theoretically, 

producers with responsibility to collect the return of their own products might well become 

creative with incentives to various parties to collect the used product, as well as direct 

incentives to consumers to return the used product. EPR supporters argue that even in the 

“share” approach where the producer is given a target to reach, a producer could actively 

seek back its used products through incentives to collectors, incentives to consumers, or other 

innovative methods. In this case, once re-acquired, the producer could actually reuse, 

refurbish, and recycle its own product, or pay a contractor to do it, thus arguably having a 

very direct incentive to change the design of a product to lower the costs of recycling. The 

WEEE Directive allows companies flexibility to create their own collection and recycling 

systems for new products, while at the same time making them responsible for historic and 

orphan products. 

 

75 See www.eprworkinggroup.org. 

76 See www.computertakeback.com. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 41

At least one large computer manufacturer in its comments championed producer 

responsibility as the better financing system and said that companies should be responsible 

for their own product recycling.77 Companies’ direct recycling of their own products, 

however, requires very labor intensive sorting and additional transportation costs to the 

individual producers or could even require a targeted and resource-intensive campaign by 

each producer to reach consumers directly. As mentioned before, the number of brands in 

electronics is very high. In addition to the Florida study cited earlier, a study in Hennepin 

County, Minnesota, identified 282 brands of televisions, 458 brands of computer monitors 

and 481 brands of CPUs that were collected from households in a six-month period in 

2004.78 The study documented the complexities of brand sorting. It found that 30 to 60 

minutes of extra time per delivery was required to record the brand names at a cost of $0.35 

per unit, not including data entry, data analysis, and project management costs. 

Most producers are not in the recycling business at this time and many do not want their 

product back. HP, however, has two electronics recycling facilities in the United States, as 

does Sony.79 IBM has also operated two recycling facilities in the United States since the 

early 1990s, and Dell has recently ramped up electronics collection and recycling activities. 

Theoretically, it may become economically feasible in the future to sort products by brand 

prior to the recycling process. Clean Production Action commented, “It is crucial that 

individual brand name companies be allowed to decrease their costs through design change 

or through creating alliances with other companies to collectively set up a system to handle 

their own brand name products. Companies know that Radio Frequency Identification will be 

the common form of product ID within the next few years allowing automatic identification 

of product brand name owners to quickly identify their products when collected. For this 

reason it is imperative that the system be run by industry; not by the government, if such 

flexibility and opportunity for cost effectiveness through a competitive system is to occur.” 

Largest PC Vendors in U.S. Market 

Dell (33%) 

HP (20%) 

Gateway (5%) 

IBM (5%) 

Toshiba (4%) 

Others (32%) 

Source: IDC 3rd quarter 2004 

A more common scenario is that the producer’s responsibility is limited to paying its share of 

returned products plus a share of orphan products with all brands handled together. The 

producer never sees its scrap. If one brand is easier to recycle than another, it is not clear that 

 

77 HP comments in Appendix VII. 

78 Department of Environmental Services, The Hennepin County Consumer Electronics Brand Tally, January 

2005, http://www.hennepin.us, January 25, 2005. 

79 Sony leases space to private recyclers at its Pittsburgh and San Diego facilities who recycle Sony and other 

products. Interview with Sony Washington Office June 15, 2006. 
Technology Administration 

42 Recycling Technology Products

a recycler’s cost would be lower since the unsorted e-waste would all have to be treated the 

same and broken down together. Opponents of EPR argue that this scenario offers little 

incentive to companies to design for the ease of recycling unless redesign is done equally by 

all members of the consortia. EPR supporters counter that producers working together could 

theoretically institute design changes to all brands that could make future e-waste less 

expensive to recycle. 

For example, in the Netherlands, the information and communications technologies (ICT) 

Milieu system, which covers ICT equipment, is a TPO that manages and finances the 

recycling system. Under ICT Milieu there is a fixed annual fee for membership in the system 

as well as a variable cost dependent upon current market share. A company’s total percentage 

of the weight per category is the basis for calculating a distribution factor and each month 

participating organizations pay a share in the disposal costs. These fees include costs for the 

disposal of orphaned and free rider goods and companies must absorb the costs of 

participation or pass them on through the retail supply chain.80 The TPO-managed system, 

with costs based on current market share, replaced an earlier system of financing which was 

an ‘own brand’ financing system based on return share. According to ICT Milieu, members 

complained about this original financing system because of a very high level of free rider and 

orphan products—estimated at 44 percent—parallel imports, a lack of transparency, and the 

high costs of brand sorting. 81

According to some, the EPR model could result in less administrative costs. One of the 

reasons is that a fee-based system, whether administered by the government or the industry, 

requires the creation of substantial infrastructure. Every layer added to the administration of 

the system increases the transaction, handling, and administrative costs. 

In California, the only state now implementing a statewide ARF, overhead costs on the part 

of the state government are estimated to be approximately 18 percent of the $73 million 

collected in the first year, in addition to the three percent of the ARF that retailers retain.82 In 

the Maine system discussed more below, producers receive invoices from state-approved 

consolidators based on actual return counts plus an orphan share; these consolidators incur 

administrative costs for billing manufacturers and include this cost in their producer invoices. 

Beyond administrative costs, HP included in its comments an evaluation of the costs of three 

different systems operating in various countries—a government imposed fee, collective 

industry implementation, and individual producer responsibility—based on its experiences in 

those countries, and concluded that systems using fees at the point of sale “are less efficient, 

less competitive in the provision of recycling and so result in a more costly system for 

 

80 Department of Trade and Industry, Study into European WEEE Schemes, pp. 67-68. 81 Department of Trade and Industry, Study into European WEEE Schemes, p. 73. 82 Interview with Matt McCarron, California Integrated Waste Management Board, June 14, 2006. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 43

consumers...” while reporting that the costs of the individual producer responsibility model 

had substantially lower costs overall. 83

Table 3: HP’s Product Takeback Cost Estimates under Different Financing Systems84

Financing 

Mechanism Government Fee 

Collective Industry 

Implementation 

Individual Producer 

Responsibility 

Cost per unit sold 

(estimated range) $8.50 – 10.50 $8.60-16.00 $2.40-4.50 

Critics counter that many of the same administrative costs remain under an EPR/CI system. 

For example, where producers are responsible for collecting the used product, producers or 

their TPO may make arrangements with local governments, retailers, and/or other 

organizations to act to collectors. These arrangements might include reimbursements or 

incentive payments. The producers (or the TPO) contract for transportation and recycling 

services. Producers can decide amongst themselves whether to process the goods collectively 

or to incur the extra cost to sort them by brand and return them to the original producer. 

Orphan products are identified and treated differently in an EPR/CI system based on returns 

or return share. Whereas under the ARF in which orphan products are taken care of 

automatically with all other products, under EPR/CI producers must decide how to process 

orphan products and who will pay for them. There are companies that once sold a 

considerable amount of televisions and personal computers in the United States that are 

either no longer in business or no longer sell those products. Under an EPR/CI model based 

on returns, these companies do not pay; instead today’s producers must pay for recycling 

these products. Decisions must be made on how much each producer pays into a TPO and, if 

products are to be sorted by brand and returned to manufacturers, how orphan products will 

be distributed or financed. If costs are allocated based on brand share in the waste stream 

(i.e., on returns), brands must be counted at least on a sample basis. Opponents of EPR/CI 

argue that the government-run ARF avoids the need for these administrative tasks and 

decisions, and possibly time-consuming debates. Under Maine’s law, invoices submitted to 

manufacturers are based on the actual weight of their returned brands plus a state-determined 

pro-rata share of all orphan products returned to that consolidator. Maine consolidators are 

also collecting brand count information for possible use in determining orphan pro-rata 

shares beginning in 2007. California, under the ARF system, does not do any brand sorts or 

brand identifications. 

Another concern expressed about EPR/CI is the possibility of unfairly higher costs for some 

manufacturers than for others. For example, commenters noted that if EPR/CI responsibility 

is based on current market share then companies that have the largest present market share 

would have to absorb the highest percent of recycling costs and largest percent of orphan 

products, increasing their costs, thus lessening the competitiveness of their product. Others 

 

83 HP’s comments in Appendix VII. These numbers were not independently verified by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

84 HP supplemental comments in Appendix VII. 
Technology Administration 

44 Recycling Technology Products

noted that if EPR/CI responsibility is based on a brand’s share of returns in the waste stream, 

then new entrants to the market would have the lowest or no historic return share and, 

therefore, the lowest recycling costs and thus an immediate competitive advantage. This is 

particularly a concern in the television industry where the televisions in the waste stream are 

much older than other consumer products (e.g., 15-17 years). A national ARF would raise the 

cost of each company’s products the same amount, regardless of market size and at which 

point in time they entered the market. 

Top TV Vendors in the United States 

Sony 

RCA 

Sanyo 

Panasonic 

Toshiba 

Apex 

Sylvania 

Magnavox 

Sharp 

Philips 

Samsung 

Source: Panasonic 2004 

Commentors addressed whether producers should be allowed to opt out of a TPO or similar 

mandated unified system. Some were emphatically against an opt out provision. In battery 

recycling, some manufacturers opt out of the RBRC program in favor of recycling programs 

they provide on their own; some in the RBRC contend that these laws are usually ineffective 

and that many self-regulating recycling programs that companies operate are, in reality, not 

nearly as strong in reality as they are on paper. 

Finally, some critics feel that the EPR/CI does not embrace the concept of shared 

responsibility and provides no consumer education about the importance of recycling, 

whereas the ARF both educates the consumer and makes them pay directly for the recycling 

system. 

Real Life Examples—Hybrids 

In practice, many programs in place today are a variation of these financing models or a 

hybrid of several different financing models. The many possibilities for variations of the 

models are not fully discussed in this report. Each financing model has fairness, 

administration, and enforcement issues, as well as design feedback and other considerations 

that can be adjusted to address the concerns raised by critics. Some adjustments can add to 

the complexity of the system, making administration more difficult. 

The EU’s WEEE Directive is one form of a hybrid with an emphasis on producer 

responsibility: the system is based on producer responsibility but allows an ARF for some 

period of time. Furthermore, as country-specific WEEE implementation moves forward in 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 45

2006, additional variations of this hybrid have appeared, including country-specific 

regulations that allow the ARF in some countries, mandate it in several others and prohibit 

the ARF in one (Greece). By and large, the WEEE Directive requires importers and 

manufacturers to finance the collection, reuse, and recycling of appliances. For products 

introduced to the market after 2005, producers generally have an individual responsibility to 

fund the management of their own products. However, across all countries, manufacturers 

are allowed to impose a “visible fee” on the product to cover the cost of WEEE compliance 

for 8-10 years, which is an ARF managed by the producer. The visible fees paid in the 

European programs are paid by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), rather than by 

the retailer, directly to the producer responsibility organization. The fee is then managed 

through the sales chain and is usually visible to the consumer at the point of sale. NEPSI 

considered a different model consisting of retailers charging an ARF for the first few years, 

then phasing out the ARF and moving to a CI model. 

The reasons supporters give for starting a recycling system with an ARF is that it provides 

adequate financing to clear out the historic waste and helps stimulate more rapid 

development of a collection, transportation, and processing infrastructure by ensuring 

funding, such as paying a CIP to the collection points to ensure adequate collection. The 

ARF finances the system while the recycling infrastructure and the market for recycled 

materials matures. 

In the Netherlands, the ICT Milieu recycling system was initially financed by a fixed annual 

fee to producers and importers plus a charge per kilo of equipment taken back and processed, 

according to brand. But because of problems already mentioned, such as expensive brand 

sorting and a very high level of free rider and orphan products, the ICT Milieu changed its 

financing system to a fixed annual fee to producers and importers, along with a variable cost 

dependent upon current market share. 

Maine’s legislation is based on producer responsibility, but it is also a hybrid. Municipalities 

are responsible for collection and delivery to a consolidator, at which point the producers’ 

financial responsibilities begin. Alberta’s Beverage Container Recycling Program is a 

deposit/refund model. The program was not taking in enough money to finance the system 

and added an ARF in 2002 to pay for recycling. 

Incentives for Voluntary Industry Recycling 

While many of the recycling programs in the various products and countries highlighted in 

this report have resulted from government legislation or have been in the shadow of 

impending government legislation, much has been voluntary. In the United States, most of 

the recycling or product stewardship efforts undertaken in e-waste up until this point have 

been voluntary. The NEPSI dialogue was a voluntary effort by industry and other 

stakeholders to find a solution to nationwide e-recycling. Several manufacturers have also 

opened recycling facilities, such as HP and Sony. Manufacturers and retailers have sponsored 

take back programs either as one-day or limited time events, a number of which are included 

in this report under ‘Government and Industry Activities.’ This same section discusses a 

diversity of methods to encourage voluntary product stewardship that industry and 
Technology Administration 

46 Recycling Technology Products

government have been developing together, such as awards, green product rating tools, and 

leveraging the Federal procurement system. 

Tax incentives are another tool to encourage product stewardship. Some legislation has 

focused on tax incentives. The Consumer Electronics Association took at cursory look at tax 

incentives in a 2003 report.85 It recommended considering: 

• Tax incentive for businesses collecting electronic waste based on volume of 

electronics collected and number of full-time jobs created. 

• Tax incentive for businesses processing electronic waste based on volume processed 

and number of full-time jobs created. 

• Tax incentive for businesses managing take-back programs based on volume 

collected and number of full-time jobs created. 

• Tax incentive for manufacturers utilizing recycled electronics materials in new 

electronics products. 

A 1998 assessment of tax incentive programs adopted by state governments to spur recycling 

gave mixed reviews to the effectiveness of the tax credit programs in 22 states.86 The author 

found that some states had abandoned tax credits because of the cost and hypothesized that 

states might be moving toward loans and grants because of the expense of financing 

recycling programs through tax incentives. A review conducted by two California state 

agencies of 1995 California’s tax credit program, which ended in 1996, found that it was 

very difficult to determine whether the credit actually promoted recycling. The review 

suggested restricting tax credits to emerging recycling markets. However, tax credits cannot 

help start-up businesses in new markets that do not show a profit initially. Oregon changed 

the target of its tax credit from recycling collectors to businesses using recovered materials in 

the manufacture of new products in order to spur the creation of new markets for recovered 

materials. The author found that states that had the most success with tax incentives were 

those that also provided a network of market development assistance in the form of technical 

assistance or financial assistance in addition to taxes credits, such as loans or grants. 

Creating a Market for Recycled Goods 

Whether electronics recycling can ever be profitable and market driven without the payment 

of additional recycling fees revolves around how much demand there is for the resulting 

recycled materials and whether the recycled material can compete on cost with the original 

manufactured material. Creating a market for the recycled product at a competitive price has 

been a problem in a number of industries. For example, Saskatchewan had an over 80 percent 

recycle rate of the annual sale of tires and uses the recycled tires to make astroturf, mats, 

shingles, car ramps, patio bricks, belts and swings, but the industry was still supported by a 

 

85 Douglas Johnson, Electronics Recycling: Incentives, Not Mandates, Consumer Electronics Association, June 

3, 2003 Draft. 

86 Kathern Sparks, “Tax Credits: An Incentive for Recycling?” Resource Recycling, July 1998, 

http://www.epa.gov/jtr/docs/taxcred.pdf (April 2005), also see summary of state recycling tax incentives at 

www.epa.gov/jtr/bizasst/rec-tax.htm (April 2005). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 47

disposal fee. Quebec’s used paint program was trying to create a market for reprocessed paint 

under the name “Boomerang.” An ARF was supporting this recycling program. 

U.S. carpet manufacturers signed a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding for Carpet 

Stewardship in 2002 with a target to divert 40 percent of the carpet bound for landfills to 

other uses or recycling by 2012. The problem was that some carpet types cost more to 

recycle than to landfill and there was no current demand for a product made from recycled 

carpet, so a market solution was not possible at that time. Demand for products made with 

recycled content carpet is beginning to develop, but slowly. Some industry representatives 

believe rather than considering mandates that the carpet industry recycle, in order to create a 

market-driven industry, the government could encourage a market-driven industry through 

mandates or incentives to use recycled carpet in other products. 

Mandating or encouraging through incentives a certain percentage of recycled content in new 

products is one action government may take to try to create a market for recycled goods. 

Panasonic suggested government tax credits for the use of post-consumer materials. Other 

stakeholders suggest that Government encourage the market for recycled goods through 

encouraging labeling that informs the consumer of the amount of recycled content or using 

the Federal procurement process to favor goods with a higher percentage of recycled content. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
APPENDICES 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 51

APPENDIX I 

INTERNATIONAL LAWS, TREATIES, AND ACTIVITIES 

The following descriptions of laws and treaties are included to show the level of international 

activity affecting electronics recycling. The descriptions of activities in various countries are 

not meant to be inclusive, but instead provide examples of the many different real world 

models that exist for financing electronics recycling. Many of the countries in the EU are in 

the midst of transitioning their electronics recycling program to comply with the EU WEEE 

and RoHS directives. 87 While most of the research on country specific electronics recycling 

programs is taken from 2004 reports, and many of the programs described here may have 

been modified, the program descriptions still remains informative as a comparison of 

different financing systems. 

European Union Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

(WEEE) Directive 

Overview 

The European Union (EU) Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive 

required that Members States ensure that collection and treatment centers are in place and 

that manufacturers have set up financing systems to pay for collection and treatment of this 

waste by August 2005. EU Member States were due to implement the WEEE Directive in 

August 2004 but only one country88 met the deadline. Other Member States postponed 

implementation. The Directive is based upon the principle of producer responsibility. The 

Directive requires producers to finance their collection, treatment, recovery and disposal of 

the wastes either by setting up their own center or by paying a fee to join a collective scheme, 

which would probably be run by a municipality. Also, producers must mark electric 

equipment with the symbol of a wheeled trash bin with an “x” through it after August 2005 

to ensure that the waste from this equipment goes to the proper WEEE collection and 

treatment center and not to the municipal garbage. One of the goals of the directive is to 

encourage the design and production of electrical equipment that will facilitate repair, 

upgrading, reuse, disassembly, and recycling. 

Scope 

The WEEE directive applies to the following ten categories of products: 

1. Large household appliances (washing machines, stoves, refrigerators, etc.) 

2. Automatic dispensers (appliances that deliver products such as warm beverages) 

3. Consumer equipment (televisions, stereos, radios, etc.) 

4. Sports and leisure equipment, toys (video games, model trains, etc.) 

5. Small household appliances (hair dryers, toasters, vacuum cleaners, etc.) 

 

87 Perchards, Transposition of the WEEE and RoHS Directives in Other EU Member States, July 2005, 

http://www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/weee/Perchardsreport_July05.pdf (April 14, 2006). 88 Cyprus. 
Technology Administration 

52 Recycling Technology Products

6. Information and telecommunications equipment (computers and peripherals, 

calculators, cellular phones, etc.) 

7. Monitoring instruments (control panels, thermostats, smoke detection devices, 

etc.) 

8. Lighting (sodium lamps, fluorescent lamps, etc.) 

9. Medical devices (radiology equipment, ventilators, etc.) 

10. Electrical and electronic tools (sewing machines, drills, saws, etc.)89

The WEEE Directive sets a minimum standard and its Member States can choose whether to 

follow this minimum standard or to apply more strict policies in their respective countries.90

Under WEEE, the financing systems are to be determined at the community level. Financing 

schemes for household WEEE must be based on producer responsibility and must contribute 

to high collection rates. Member States are required to ensure that each producer provides a 

guarantee when placing a product on the market showing that the management of all WEEE 

will be financed and that the product is clearly marked. In regards to new products, or those 

introduced to the market after August 13, 2005, producers have an ‘individual responsibility,’ 

which means that they must fund the management of their own products. This can be done 

either through individual company programs or collective schemes involving multiple 

companies. The minimal quota for the collection is four kilograms per citizen/year. For re-use 

and recycling minimal quotas, they will be between 50 and 80 percent, depending on the 

appliance. Regarding orphan or historic products sold before the Directive applied, all 

existing manufacturers are responsible for these products in proportion to their market share 

by type of equipment. During a transitional period of eight years (ten years for large 

household appliances), producers are allowed to impose a separate ‘visible fee’ on the sale of 

new products to show the costs of collection, treatment and disposal. After the transitional 

period, these costs cannot be shown separately to consumers. 

The rules are somewhat different for WEEE from commercial users. While producers are 

responsible for financing the costs collection, treatment, recovery, and disposal of WEE on 

new products, the Member States can allow that commercial (non-household) users be made 

partly or totally responsible for financing the management of historic waste.91

Impact 

The WEEE Directive applies to producers and distributors, and therefore will apply to U.S. 

exporters of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) to the EU. Companies are concerned 

about the heavy costs the Directive imposes on them and the lack of clarity of the details of 

implementation, since the program was late in being implemented in most Member States. 

The UK, France and Italy still had not opened registration centers for the WEEE Directive as 

of May 2006. Several other Member States had only recently opened registration centers. 

 

89 Inform, Inc. European Union (EU) Electrical and Electronic Product Directives: WEEE and RoHS p. 1. 90 Inform, European Union (EU) Electrical and Electronic Product Directives: WEEE and RoHS p. 1. 91 Official Journal of the European Union, Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), 13.2.2003. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 53

Another unknown is how Internet sales will be treated. The Directive defines whoever 

produces or imports equipment into a Member State on a commercial basis is regarded as the 

‘producer’ and thus is responsible for collection, re-use, and recycling. It is not clear who 

will take this responsibility for Internet sales. Furthermore, one of the stated purposes of the 

WEEE and RoHS Directives is to harmonize individual Member State legislation on the 

management of electronic and electrical equipment. While passing the directives at the EU 

level would, in theory, unify the differing national requirements, there is some question as to 

what extent harmonization will indeed be ensured in practice. This is because the EU 

Commission has based the WEEE Directive on Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty (which is the 

legal basis for a majority of the EU’s environmental legislation), while the RoHS Directive is 

based on Article 95(1) of the EC Treaty (the EU’s legal basis for Internal Market legislation). 

The legal basis of the directives is very important for industry since it determines under 

which conditions Member States may adopt legislation that goes further than the restrictions 

and obligations provided by EU legislation. Article 95(1) requires the Commission’s prior 

approval if Member States want to introduce stricter legislation. That means that all of the 25 

Member States must implement the RoHS Directive as it is prescribed by the EC. Only with 

prior parliamentary consent can countries adopt stricter regulations. The WEEE Directive, on 

the other hand, does not guarantee harmonization because Member States may introduce 

stricter legislation subject only to notification of the EC.92

European Union Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive 

Overview 

Recognizing that not all hazardous substances can be recycled or disposed of in an 

environmentally sound and safe manner, in 2003 the EU created Directive 2002/95/EC, the 

Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive, which imposes a ban on the use of 

certain hazardous substances in electronic and electrical equipment. Like the WEEE 

Directive, Member States were required to implement the RoHS Directive by August 13, 

2004, but final details on the implementation of RoHS depend on decisions taken by the 

Technical Adaptation Committee (TAC), which last met on February 2006. The RoHS 

directive provides that as of July 1, 2006, new electrical and electronic equipment put on the 

EU market must not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, or the flameretardants PBB and PBDE. The legal basis for the RoHS directive is the removal of trade 

barriers. Under RoHS, Member States may not apply more restrictive policies, such as 

requiring the removal of non-RoHS addressed hazardous substances or requiring removal 

sooner than the date set out in the Directive, unless these countries have an explicit 

exemption.93 

In the past few years, the European Union and some of its member countries have taken a 

very active role in pushing to ban a number of products containing various nonferrous metals 

using “precautionary and substitution” principles. These proposals were initially focused on 

 

92 EPA. 

93 Inform, European Union (EU) Electrical and Electronic Product Directives: WEEE and RoHS p. 1. 
Technology Administration 

54 Recycling Technology Products

cadmium, lead, and mercury, but, recently, other metals such as copper, nickel, and zinc have 

been highlighted. The RoHS Directive establishes a regulatory process of placing bans on the 

use of certain materials, such as lead and cadmium, which are essential to the functionality, 

safety, and reliability of electrical and electronic products. In their evaluation of the new 

Directive, EU Commissioners have agreed that bans must be made based on risk 

assessments. The TAC is working to decide whether there should be additional exemptions 

listed in the RoHS directive. The European Commission will propose a review the terms of 

the Directive in 2008/2009 to take into account problems experiences in the first few years of 

operations of the new system. 

Scope 

After July 1, 2006, most producers will have to ensure sure that products are not placed on 

the EU market if they contain the following substances: 

• Lead 

• Mercury 

• Hexavalent chromium 

• Cadmium 

• Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) 

• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) 

The elimination of these materials by this date will entail significant planning for producers 

because as of 2008 these hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment cannot 

be used any longer. This requirement will be phased in between 2006 and 2008. 

RoHS covers the same scope as the WEEE Directive, with the exception of medical, 

monitoring and control equipment and a number of specific exemptions set out in the Annex 

to the Directive. The applications which are exempt from the requirements of the Directive 

include mercury in certain types of fluorescent lamps, lead in the glass of cathode ray tubes, 

electronic components and fluorescent tubes, lead in electronic ceramic parts, and hexavalent 

chromium as an anti-corrosion of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators. 

The exemptions will be reviewed every four years. 

Impact 

The RoHS Directive has already had a wide impact on product design internationally as EU 

and multinational electronics companies strive to comply with its requirements. The 

Directive is expected to have an impact on both U.S. and European industries as changes are 

being made up and down the supply chain. Companies have, and continue to make, 

enormous investments to find substitutes for banned materials and to develop tests to ensure 

compliance. Industry is, however, concerned that the proposals lacked transparency in their 

development and may adversely affect trade in products where viable substitutes may not 

exist. Furthermore, the EU might make further exemptions for chemicals where there are no 

known substitutes. The lack of substitutes for many uses of the regulated substances mutes 

the effect of RoHS. For example, the largest source of the restricted substances in electronics 

is lead in CRTs, which are exempt. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 55

Basel Convention 

The 1989 “Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 

Wastes and their Disposal" was negotiated under the United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP). It entered into force on May 5, 1992 and currently has 168 Parties to 

the Convention. This multilateral environmental agreement regulates the import and export 

of hazardous waste among the Parties to it, and establishes legal obligations to ensure that 

such wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner.94 The Convention aims to 

minimize the generation of hazardous wastes in terms of quantity and hazardousness, to 

dispose of wastes as close as possible to the source of generation, and to reduce the 

movement of hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes span multiple categories such as toxic, 

poisonous, explosive, corrosive, flammable, ecotoxic, and infectious to include anything 

from pathological waste to wastes from dyes/paints. The Basel Convention has established 

regional centers for training and technology transfer in Argentina, China, Egypt, El Salvador, 

India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Senegal, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Russian Federation, 

Trinidad & Tobago, and Uruguay. These centers are intended to help countries to implement 

the Basel Convention, through guidance and technical advising, and the centers also 

encourage countries to introduce cleaner production technologies and to use environmentally 

sound management practices.95

Parties to the Basel Convention must comply with basic notification and consent procedures 

and a requirement that each year Parties to the Convention must report information on the 

generation and movement of hazardous wastes. This information is collected via a 

questionnaire sent to member countries, requesting information on the generation, export, and 

import of hazardous wastes and other wastes covered under the Convention.96 In addition, 

before an export of Basel-regulated hazardous waste can take place, the Parties to the 

movement must ensure that the waste will be managed in an environmentally sound manner in 

the country of import. Each transboundary shipment of hazardous waste or other waste must 

have a movement document along with it from the point its transit begins until its point of 

disposal. Under the Convention, waste shipments made without such documentation are illegal. 

To assist in these efforts, the Parties have developed guidelines on environmentally sound 

management of certain waste streams, waste treatment and waste management practices, along 

with guidelines on monitoring and detecting illegal traffic in hazardous waste. The Secretariat 

of the Basel Convention also assists countries (as well as industry, companies, and other 

stakeholders) to manage or dispose of their wastes in the proper way, and it cooperates with 

national authorities to develop national legislation, and to set up inventories of hazardous 

wastes, among other activities.97 The Convention is not exact on what e-waste is considered 

hazardous. Basel parties interpret their obligations under the Convention using their domestic 

 

94 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Basel Convention Background.” International Waste Activities: 

Basel Convention Website, http://www.epa.gov/osw/internat/basel.htm. 

95 Secretariat of the Basel Convention. “Basel Basics: An Overview” website, 

http://www.basel.int/pub/basics.html. 

96 Secretariat of the Basel Convention.

97 Secretariat of the Basel Convention.
Technology Administration 

56 Recycling Technology Products

laws. As a result, different countries have different views about which e-waste materials are 

hazardous under the Convention.

The United States signed the Convention in 1990 and the U.S. Senate provided its advice and 

consent to ratification in 1992. However, the Convention has not yet been ratified by the U.S. 

Government, as domestic legislation must be enacted that would provide statutory authority 

to implement all of the Convention's requirements. The United States participates in the 

meetings of the Convention Parties, but as a non-Party is not allowed to vote.98

World Trade Organization 

The World Trade Organization Doha Development Round Non-Agricultural Market Access 

Negotiations (NAMA) include talks on the elimination of barriers to trade of remanufactured 

and refurbished products, including electronics. 

3Rs Initiative 

At the G899 Summit in June 2004 in Sea Island, the 3Rs Initiative100 (Reduce, Reuse and 

Recycle) was introduced by Japan and supported by the United States to encourage mutual 

benefits for the environment, the economy, and jobs. Japan hosted a Ministerial Conference 

on the 3Rs Initiative April 27-30, 2005 in Tokyo to develop overall directions for the 

Initiative to encourage more efficient and effective use of resources and materials globally. 

The Government of Japan invited ministers from 19 countries, the EC Commissioner for 

Environment and representatives from several organizations. 

As agreed at Sea Island, the Ministerial Conference addressed the following subjects: 

1. National policies to implement the 3Rs 

2. Reduction of barriers to the international flow of goods and materials related to 

the 3Rs 

3. Encouragement of cooperation among various stakeholders 

4. Promotion of science and technology suitable for 3Rs 

5. Cooperation between developed and developing countries 

Senior officials of 20 countries met in March 2006 in Tokyo as part of the Asia Pacific 

Forum for Environment and Development (APFED) Expert Meeting on the 3Rs to discuss 

relevant progress made in promoting “Reduce, Reuse and Recycle” domestically, to learn 

from other delegations about ongoing work in the promotion of the 3Rs and to determine 

 

98 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, International Waste Activities, Basel Convention Website, 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/internat/basel.htm. 99 Group of the eight major industrial nations consisting of Japan, Russia, UK, France, Italy, Germany, USA, 

and Canada. 

100 See http://www.env.go.jp/earth/3r/en/index.html for more information. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 57

ways in which barriers to transboundary movement of 3R products, particularly recycled and 

remanufactured, could be eliminated among participating countries. 

Japan 

(Producer-managed ARF, retailer and government collection) 

The Japanese government has passed a number of laws to promote recycling within Japan. In 

2000, Japan enacted the Basic Law for Promotion of a Recycle-Oriented Society (Law No. 

110) which sets basic principles relating to the creation of a recycle oriented society. The 

Law for Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources (Law No. 48) enacted in 1991, and 

amended in 2002, sets recycling requirements for a wide range of different products. Several 

recent laws target recycling regimes in certain industries, such as the Specific Law for 

Container and Packaging Recycling, the Specific Household Appliance Recycling Law, 

the Construction Materials Recycling Law, the Food Waste Recycling Law, and most 

recently, and the Law for the Recycling of End of Life Vehicles.101 Given the influence of 

Japanese companies on the global electronics market, the response of Japanese producers to 

these regulations by setting goals to produce products that use less energy, are more easily 

recyclable and contain fewer hazardous substances, has affected the make up of products by 

its global suppliers. 

Under Japan’s Specified Home Appliance Recycling (SHAR) Law, enacted in 1998 and 

entered into force on April 1, 2001, manufacturers and importers of washing machines, TV’s, 

air conditioners, and refrigerators are required to take-back and reuse and/or recycle the 

discarded products they manufactured. Differentiated recycling rates range from between 50-

60 percent (by weight) among the four product categories and can be fulfilled through 

product reuse, component reuse, and/or recycling. 102

While much, if not all, of the financial burden is passed on to the consumer, the onus of 

collecting and transporting end-of-life appliances falls primarily on retailers, and the onus of 

recycling on manufacturers. Collection is divided between retailers and municipalities, with 

retailers collecting approximately 80 percent of the WEEE and municipalities collecting the 

remaining 20 percent of products taken back. 103 When consumers buy a new appliance, 

retailers are required to accept the old appliance and transport it back to its original 

manufacturer or to a collection center contracted through the manufacturer. Retailers collect 

an end-of-life fee from the consumer, which covers collection and transport costs as well as 

recycling costs imposed by the manufacturer. Recycling fees are set by each manufacturer for 

its own products; the fees range from ¥2,400-¥4,600 ($US21-$41). 

The domestic electronics assembly industry is aggressively pursuing the removal of lead 

from the manufacturing process. In 1998, the Japanese government increased levies for 

 

101 Environment of Tokyo, Overview of Japanese Legislation on Waste Management, 

http://www2.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/anmc21_WM/legislation.htm, (14 June 2006). 102 EPA. 103 National Electronics Products Stewardship Initiative, Financing and Infrastructure Model Characteristics, p. 

2. 
Technology Administration 

58 Recycling Technology Products

recycled leaded equipment. It has established a target of removal of 90 percent of lead for 

domestic manufacturing. 

Many speculated that manufacturers would seek to set their fees as low as possible to 

improve their competitive advantage and would absorb the costs of recycling in order to 

remain competitive through low end-of-life fees. Initially, the leading electric appliance 

manufacturers all set the same recycling fee for each appliance. There is also some evidence 

that the law caused manufacturers to change their products in ways that facilitate easier 

disassembly and recycling thereby enabling them to eventually offer lower end-of-life fees to 

their customers. Mitsubishi, for example, built its 2001 model washing machine using small 

standard-sized bolts, which are located in easy to find places, and can be removed with 

ordinary tools. There are also symbols printed inside washers to provide a roadmap of the 

number and location of the screws.104

Japan required businesses to recycle electronics, including computers, starting in 2001. In 

2003 electronics and extended it to households in 2003.105 Computers bought before 2003 

incur an EOL fee when discarded; computers bought after 2003 have and ARF incorporated 

into the price.106 Amendments to the Law for the Promotion of Effective Utilization of 

Resources that are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2006, require that importers will be 

subject to directives in eight product categories: personal computers (including CRT and 

LCD displays), unit-type air conditioners, televisions, microwave ovens, clothes dryers, 

electric refrigerators, electric washing machines, and copying machines. Six chemical 

substances (mercury, cadmium, lead, hexavalent chromium, PBB, and PBDE) will be subject 

to labeling and reporting requirements. Japan’s amended regulations will not ban these 

chemical substances. 

China 

China's Ministry of Information Industry (MII) developed “Management Methods for 

Controlling Pollution Caused by Electronic Information Products Regulation, ” referred 

commonly to as “China RoHS,” to provide a broad regulatory framework for substance 

restrictions, pre-market certifications, labeling and information disclosure requirements 

affecting a broad range of products, parts and components defined as electronic information 

products (EIP). The directive was issued on Feb. 28, 2006, and takes effect March 1, 2007.107

According to early reports, it mandates for a phase out of heavy metals such as cadmium, 

mercury, lead, and hexavalent chromium as well as brominated flame retardants in future 

electronic products. The legislation bans the import of electronic products that do not comply 

with the national or industrial standards for the control of toxic or hazardous substances. 

 

104 Rosenbach, p. 5. 105 Northwest Product Stewardship Council, http://www.productstewardship.net/policiesElectronicsIntl.html, 

(14 June 2006). 

106 Inform, PC Recycling in Japan, February 2004 (13 June 2006). 107 Northwest Product Stewardship Council, http://www.productstewardship.net/policiesElectronicsIntl.html, 

(14 June 2006). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 59

Manufactured and imported products must indicate the names, contents and locations of toxic 

or hazardous substances or elements and recyclability in order to be imported.108

China is also developing a version of the WEEE legislation which will address regulations on 

recycling of used household electrical products and computers. 

Belgium 

(Producer managed ARF and EOL fee, consumer financed, retailer take-back and high 

recovery rate) 

On July 1, 2001, Federal legislation mandated that a system for the collection, transport, and 

recycling of electronics products be set up by manufacturers and importers in Belgium. 

Industry responded by creating Recupel, for the collection, transport, and recycling of 

WEEE. This is a non-profit organization that is managed and financed by the importers and 

producers. The Recupel system incorporates the principle of ‘producer responsibility’ as the 

companies who produce and/or put WEEE equipment on the market are obligated to take it 

back.109 Producers assume responsibility for the costs of collecting and recycling WEEE, 

with Recupel conducting these activities on their behalf. The costs are then passed onto the 

consumer in the form of a fixed fee.110 It also is based on the legal concept of the ‘take back 

obligation,’ to which importers and producers of EE are required by law to take back goods 

on a one-for-one basis.111 Because of this ‘take back obligation’ Recupel does not reimburse 

retailers for their participation in the system, and this is one area where Recupel differs from 

other retailer take back initiatives.112

The Recupel system is financed by both a fixed fee paid by the consumer at the time of 

purchase of a new EE appliance, as well as a fee paid by the end user, which provides a fixed 

amount towards the cost of recycling. The type of product determines this fee. At the retail 

outlet, this fixed fee must be displayed separately on pricing displays as well as on the 

purchase invoice. WEEE products that are not part of Recupel are not to be sold by 

producers, importers, or retailers.113 Table 4 shows this visible fee on specific products. 

Producers and distributors are only burdened with administering the system, as theoretically 

consumers pay at the point-of-sale for transport and recycling costs.114

 

108 Grace Compliance Specialist LLC, China RoHS Law in English, www.graspllc.com (14 June 2006). 109 UK Department of Trade and Industry, Study into European WEEE Schemes, November 20, 2003, p. 46. 110 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 49. 111 Recupel, General Information Brochure on Recycling of WEEE, Brussels, Belgium: May 2003, 

http://www.recupel.be/recupel/pdf/RECUPEL%20brochure%20recyclage%202003%20EN.pdf. 112 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 56. 113 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 49. 114 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 56. 
Technology Administration 

60 Recycling Technology Products

Table 4: Recycling Contributions set by Recupel 

Since July 1, 2001 (Euro VAT Included) based on 2003 report115

Household Appliances – BW - REC 

Cooling and Freezing Equipment €20 

Large Appliances €10 

Small Appliances €5 

Vacuum Cleaners €3 

Audio and Video Equipment - AV 

Image reproduction €11 

Image/Sound reception, recording, and 

reproduction 

€6 

Sound recording/reproduction €1.5 

Portable equipment and car audio €3 

Image printers and projectors 2€ 

Others 0.1€ 

Small household appliances - SDA 

Equipment for home environment €1 

Women’s care appliances €1 

Health €1 

Food Preparation €1 

Clocks €1 

Under Recupel, producers are also responsible for monitoring EE equipment from its 

production until its end-of-life treatment. Consumers are also able to return WEEE products 

to a retail outlet when they are purchasing new equipment. Furthermore, consumers are 

eligible to return equipment at no cost to a waste collection center as well.116 The costs of 

collection, treatment, and recycling are invoiced to Recupel by the companies performing the 

services.117

Recupel has five sectoral management agencies that each focus on one group of products118: 

1. Recupel AV – Consumer electronics 

2. Recupel ICT – IT, telecommunications, and office equipment 

3. Recupel SDA – Small domestic electrical appliances 

4. Recupel BW-Rec – Large domestic electrical appliances 

5. Recupel ET&G – Electrical tools and electrical garden equipment 

In terms of infrastructure and collection of WEEE, by the end of the year in 2003 “Recupel 

had a national network of 1,800 active collection points and collected more than 45,000 

 

115 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 49. 116 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 46. 117 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 49. 118 Recupel, Annual Report 2003, Brussels, Belgium 2003, p. 4, 

http://www.recupel.be/recupel/pdf/annualreport2003.pdf. 

ICT Equipment 

Complete PC System €9 

PC’s and typewriters €3 

Monitors €6 

Laptops and peripheral units €2 

Paper printers €2 

Photocopiers €3 

Small computer equipment €0.5 

Telecommunications equipment €0.5 

Other €0.1 

Electrical Gardening equipment and 

tools – ET&G 

Electrical Gardening Equipment €2 

Electrical Tools €2 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 61

tonnes119 of WEEE across the whole of Belgium.”120 This collection figure breaks down into 

an average of 3,740 tons per month and an average of 4.5 kilograms per person, which would 

meet the objectives for the European WEEE directive of 2005.121 According to Recupel 

estimates, 21 percent of its total WEEE collected comes from electrical and electronic 

retailers, with an additional 63 percent coming from municipal and inter-municipal container 

parks.122

Recupel has been successful in gaining wide participation from producers and importers in 

the country. This high level of participation is attributed to its “heavy investment in 

monitoring and reporting” and the fact that “Recupel operates its own register of companies 

operating in the electrical goods arena, and actively contacts the names of those non 

compliant to the authorities.”123 For example, the total number of members and affiliations 

doubled during 2002124 and in 2003 consisted of 1,826 affiliations as well as 1,134 

members.125

In 2003, Recupel met or nearly met its legal recycling targets accounting for material 

recovery of WEEE products. Table 5 shows the performance of Recupel against its recovery 

objectives: 

This system is generally seen as successful in that it is close to meeting its recycling targets, 

it has high participation from importers and manufacturers, and is very close, if not 

adequately, satisfying WEEE Directive objectives for 2005.126 Updated statistics and 

information on consumer fee contributions can be found in the Annual Report of Recupel.127

Table 5: Recupel Recycling Targets 2003 by Product Category (material recovery)128

Product Type Recycling Target Performance 

Large Domestic Appliances 90% 84% 

Refrigerators and Freezers 70% 81% 

TV and Computer Monitors 70% 83% 

Small Domestic and ICT 70% 82% 

 

119 A metric tonne is 1,000 kilograms or 2,200 pounds. 120 Recupel, Annual Report 2003, p. 12. 121 Recupel, Annual Report 2003, p. 12. 122 Recupel, Annual Report 2003, p. 13. 123 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 56. 124 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 55. 125 Recupel, Annual Report 2003, p.7. 126 UK Department of Trade and Industry, pp. 56-58. 127 See www.recupel.be. 128 Recupel, Annual Report 2003, p.18. 
Technology Administration 

62 Recycling Technology Products

Denmark 

(Government managed, taxpayer financed, no retail take-back, no performance data) 

The new Danish Order to comply with WEEE should be implemented in April 2006. 

Previous legislation governing recycling in Denmark included the Danish Statutory Order on 

Management of Waste from Electric and Electronic products which took effect on December 

1, 1999. This legislation placed primary responsibility for WEEE with local authorities and 

municipalities. These entities were legally responsible for the waste throughout its collection, 

transport, and recycling even when it was sent abroad for processing.129

The 275 municipalities in Denmark formed 32 joint municipal-waste management companies 

that coordinated regional waste services. Larger urban areas such as Copenhagen, Arhus, 

Albourg, and Odense formed their own waste management organizations. These regional and 

city waste management organizations formed two national collective organizations: Affald 

Denmark, a collective of city authorities, and Renosam, a collective of regional local 

municipalities. Both of these organizations were responsible for approximately 3.2 million of 

the total population of 5.2 million people in Denmark.130

This system in Denmark was funded via local household waste tax administered by local 

authorities. These levels of tax varied by municipality, with industrial EE recycling being 

financed by the end-user.131

A majority of electronic waste in Denmark was collected at collection points in containers 

owned and operated by local authorities. There was some curbside collection, but it was not 

mandatory and varied from area to area. The three types of electronic waste collected at these 

collection points were as follows: 

• Refrigerator Items 

• Electronic Items with Screens 

• Electronic Items without Screens 

There was no in-store take-back through the main municipal and regional authorityadministered systems. Some companies offered their own take-back schemes but these 

operations were limited.132 The local municipalities worked with approximately 30 small and 

medium enterprises, with recycling conducted mostly through private subcontractors. 

Regional and municipal recycling collectives offered contracts for the transport and recycling 

of collected waste.133

 

129 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 59. 130 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 59. 131 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 61. 132 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 60. 133 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 60. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 63

The system was highly decentralized, but had a 100 percent geographic coverage of the 

Danish territory and the Danish population generally regarded the municipal tax system as 

fair.134

The Danish WEEE Order based on producer/importer responsibility, is supposed to be 

implemented on April 1, 2006. The provisions on labeling and registration entered into force 

August 2005 and January 2006, respectively. The new WEEE Order replaces previous 

Danish regulations on management of waste from electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). 

EEE imported or manufactured after August 12, 2005 must be labeled with a crossed-out 

wheeled bin as well as with the name or logo of the producer/importer. The crossed-out 

wheeled bin label denotes that WEEE must not be disposed of with household waste but 

should instead be collected separately. Information to consumers of EEE must be stated in 

the sales and marketing material. 

The municipalities in Denmark are responsible for collection schemes and collection sites for 

WEEE from households. This commitment is met through bring schemes, i.e. setting up 

containers at the municipal recycling sites or other collection sites, and/or through pick-up 

schemes. It is up to the municipalities to decide the schemes and they may recover costs via 

waste disposal fees from the households. After the WEEE has been collected, the 

municipalities must ensure that the waste is separated into five fractions: 

• large household appliances and automatic dispensers 

• small household appliances, electrical and electronic tools (excluding large-scale 

stationary industrial tools, toys and sport and leisure equipment, medical 

equipment, monitoring and regulation instruments) 

• IT and telecommunications equipment 

• Consumer equipment 

• Lighting equipment 

The municipalities will ensure 100 percent geographic coverage of the collection scheme by 

setting up approximately 400 collection sites. Each site will be divided into the five fractions, 

which means a total of 2,000 special collection containers throughout the country. 

However, it is no longer the municipalities' duty to treat the waste. This obligation now lies 

with "WEEE System" (see below), which will dispose of the waste by allocating it to 

producers and importers for further treatment in accordance with market share in each of the 

five fractions. WEEE must be treated at plants which have been approved by the Danish EPA 

and fixed requirements for e.g. storage, design and reporting have been laid down by law. 

The Danish Minister of the Environment has transferred a number of responsibilities 

concerning administration of the WEEE Order to "WEEE System", which is a private and 

independent non-profit organization. "WEEE System" is responsible for registration and for 

 

134 UK Department of Trade and Industry, pp. 61-62. 
Technology Administration 

64 Recycling Technology Products

laying down more detailed guidelines, procedures, etc., and "WEEE System" is also 

responsible for charging and collecting registration fees. 

Existing producers and importers of EEE covered by producer responsibility had to be 

registered at "WEEE System" before January 1, 2006. New producers and importers 

commencing marketing of products after this date must submit a request for registration no 

later than 14 days prior to commencing marketing. 

Producers and importers of EEE must pay "WEEE System" with regard to registration and 

management of the scheme. The fees are cost-dependent and are currently being negotiated. 

The registration fee will most likely be DKK 1,000 and the annual administration fee will be 

based on market share for the EEE in order to ensure that small enterprises are not burdened 

unfairly. Furthermore, a producer/importer must provide a financial guarantee for equipment 

marketed for households in order to ensure treatment of the waste. The size of the financial 

guarantee will be determined by "WEEE System". If a producer/importer joins a collective 

scheme, "WEEE System" can exempt the producer/importer from having to provide a 

financial guarantee for equipment. So far there are three collective schemes in Denmark. 

Sellers and distributors need only take back WEEE if they offer it voluntarily and should 

only take back the same type of EEE as they sell. If a seller or distributor offers to take back 

WEEE, consumers should be able to return the WEEE free of charge. Enterprises are only 

allowed to charge for any additional services, such as transporting WEEE from households. 

A seller/distributor must use the collection schemes provided by the municipality. In cases of 

larger volumes of WEEE, the seller/distributor must, however, make and agreement with 

"WEEE System". 

With regard to equipment for use by trade and industry (B2B) sold after April 1, 2006 the 

producer/importer is responsible for take-back and treatment of the equipment (individually 

or through a collective scheme). The producer/importer can also make an agreement with the 

buyer to the effect that the buyer will take over the commitments. The producers/importers 

are required to inform "WEEE System" about such agreements. 

All WEEE which is not subject to producer responsibility regulation is considered as "waste 

from other electrical and electronic equipment". The municipalities are responsible for 

collection and treatment of this type of waste. 

The WEEE Order stipulates that municipal treatment plants may continue until December 31, 

2006. Subsequent to December 31, 2006 the municipal WEEE treatment sites may continue 

if they are separated from other municipal operations and compete on equal market terms. 

In 2005 between 35,000 and 40,000 tons of WEEE and CFC-containing refrigeration 

appliances were collected and separated for special treatment. It is the European 

Commission's target that, before December 31, 2006 EU Member States will be collecting at 

least 4 kg of WEEE per inhabitant per year from households, which corresponds to 

approximately 21,500 tons in Denmark. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 65

The Danish EPA has estimated that the cost for society will be between DKK 150 to 175 

million per year. The municipalities' costs of collecting and treating WEEE are estimated at 

almost DKK 100 million in 2005, so the expected extra cost for society will be DKK 50 to 75 

million annually.135

Netherlands 

In the Netherlands, there are two take-back systems, which were established by 

manufacturers and importers: ICT Milieu and the Netherlands Association for Disposal of 

"Metalectro" Products (NVMP). Both programs are voluntary programs started by 

manufacturers and importers in December 1999. NVMP covers white and brown goods (i.e. 

refrigerators and electrical consumer products such as television sets) and ICT Milieu covers 

ICT equipment (i.e. computers, printers, fax machines, photocopiers, and telephones). These 

two programs are based upon the ‘take back obligation’ of producers/importers, as well as an 

April 21, 1998 Decree from the Dutch Government which established rules for taking back 

and recycling white and brown goods after use. This Decree states that producers or 

organizations to which they are affiliated must notify the Ministry of the Environment of the 

manner in which they will collect the goods, the percentage of these products that will be reused, the manner in which the remaining percentage will be disposed of, the manner in which 

the system will be financed, and the monitoring and auditing means that have been 

instituted.136

ICT Milieu 

(Government collection, producer responsibility, CI or PCI, TPO) 

ICT Milieu uses a two-tier collection system through 540 municipal collection sites and 65 

regional collection and sorting depots. Under this system, private households may dispose of 

their ICT WEEE either by returning, at no charge, the old product to the retailer or supplier 

when purchasing a new product or by handing in the old product to the municipality. This 

last service varies from curbside pickup in some areas to private consumers being directed to 

drop-off their old products at a designated collection point in the municipality in other areas. 

Some areas also charge a fee for this service.137

Business consumers in the Netherlands wishing to dispose of ICT WEEE are free to sell or 

pass on equipment to third parties, as well as to exchange ‘old for new’ products with the 

supplier and/or retailer when purchasing new products. Business consumers wishing to 

dispose of old products without purchasing new products can either offer the products to the 

relevant manufacturer or importer directly or can have the old products collected and 

disposed of by their industrial waste collector. However, although a number of manufacturers 

and importers do take back their branded products from consumers in the Netherlands, the 

 

135 See Danish EPA, http://www.mst.dk/homepage/, and WEEE System, www.weee-system.dk. 136 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 65. 137 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 67. 
Technology Administration 

66 Recycling Technology Products

manufacturer or importer is under no obligation to take back the old products in this 

situation.138

Initially, ICT Milieu set up a system, which was financed by a fixed annual fee plus a charge 

per kilo of equipment taken back and processed, according to brand. The charge reflected the 

actual costs for collection, sorting, and recycling of a specific manufacturer’s products but 

there was a high level of free rider and orphan products on the market, estimated to be 

approximately 44 percent, for which the manufacturer could not be charged. Because of this, 

as well as the issue that brand sorting proved to be too expensive and was not transparent, the 

ICT Milieu financing system was changed in January 2003 to a ‘current market share’ 

system. Under this new financing system there is a fixed annual fee for membership in the 

ICT Milieu system, along with a variable cost dependent upon current market share. Dutch 

legislation requires all companies to make a declaration of the total weight of equipment put 

onto the market in a certain period by category of equipment. The company’s total 

percentage of the weight per category is the basis for calculating a distribution factor. Each 

month manufacturers and importers participating in the ICT take back system pay a share in 

the disposal costs (including the costs for the disposal of orphaned goods/free rider goods). 

There is no visible fee imposed but companies must absorb the costs of participation or pass 

them on through the retail supply chain.139

In 2002, ICT Milieu collected a total of 9900 tons of products, at a cost of €14 million.140

The system operates on a minimal cost and staffing base, with transporters and recycling 

companies paid on the basis of weight of WEEE handled. In addition, 25 percent of total 

revenues go towards the operation of regional collection and sorting depots. In 2003, there 

were 178 companies participating in the system and ICT Milieu estimates that these 

participants were responsible for approximately 80-90 percent of the ICT volume entering 

the market in the Netherlands.141

NVMP 

(Government collection, financed by taxes, industry-managed ARF) 

NVMP was begun in response to the Decree of April 21, 1998 to establish rules for taking 

back and processing white and brown goods after use. This organization organizes the 

transportation and recycling of cooling and freezing products, large white goods, TV and 

video products, and small household items. Collection for these goods is handled by local 

authorities, which have organized into the NVRD, which is a branch organization of public 

waste collection and cleansing companies. These local authorities are charged with 

organizing separate collection for WEEE as well as establishing local collection facilities 

where consumer and suppliers can discard old products. In 2003, there were approximately 

600 local collection points throughout the Netherlands. Consumers can bring a non-

 

138 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 67. 139 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 68. 140 ICT Milieu, ICT Milieu – Three Years Experience with Electronics Recycling in the Netherlands: 

Organizational and Financial Aspects, July 2003, p. 15. 141 UK Department of Trade and Industry, pp. 71-73. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 67

functioning product back to the supplier and apply it towards the purchase of a new product. 

Retailers must also transport the equipment from the consumer’s house on payment of a 

removal fee. Old products can also be deposited in a municipal waste site or can be collected 

by the municipality.142 NVMP collected approximately 65,000 tons of WEEE in 2002.143

Following the sorting of products, local authorities transport the waste to 69 Regional 

Transfer Stations (RTS), which are organized by the NVRD. The private sector, however, 

does assume some of the financial responsibility for operating the RTS. Transport of the 

products is financed by NVMP and is outsourced to a single supplier for the whole country 

and NVMP also outsources all recycling activities to four specialist companies who in turn 

make use of eight plants to conduct recycling. When purchasing new EE appliances, the end 

user contributes a fixed amount to the costs which finances the collection, transportation, 

treatment, as well as the regional collection centers, administrative costs, and communication 

expenses. Producers and importers are contracted to show the amount of these contributions 

on the purchase invoice. These contributions are paid to NVMP every two months on the 

basis of the number of appliances on the market. The level of the visible fee is set per unit, 

based on the type of equipment. Local authorities are responsible for collection and sorting 

from distributors or households, the rest of the system is financed by NVMP. Local Regional 

Authorities (LRAs) finance the separate collection of WEEE by levying local taxes. Also 

when consumers buy EE equipment they often pay a removal contribution in addition to the 

purchase price. The visible fees in the Netherlands are currently among the lowest in the 

comparable European systems. Table 6 shows visible fees, established in 2001, by product 

type.144

Table 6: NVMP Visible Fee by Product Type145

Product Type Visible Fee Euro/Unit Including VAT 

Cooling and freezing appliances €17 

White Goods €5 

Small household appliances €0-1 

Electric heaters €4.54 

Electronic equipment €3-8 

Electronic pianos €2 

Hairdryers, sewing machines €9.08 

Fans, radio, garden tools €0 

Kettles €0.68-9.08 

Electrical tools €1 

 

142 UK Department of Trade and Industry, pp. 75-77. 143 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 80. 144 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 78. 145 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 79. 
Technology Administration 

68 Recycling Technology Products

The Ministry of the Environment has indicated that there was some inefficiency in operating 

two schemes in the Netherlands and that this resulted in a certain amount of task 

duplication.146 However, ICT Milieu, along with NVMP, currently meets the national 

collection targets set out in the WEEE Directive.147 Furthermore, the development of the 

visible fee system, in NVMP, on a national level brought about economies of scale, which 

led to a reduction in the level of the fees for certain types of appliances. For example, fees for 

certain small appliances were eliminated to improve administrative efficiency and reduce 

costs.148

Norway 

(EPR or ARF, depending on product, collection by government, retailers and producers) 

The collective program for the transport and recycling of WEEE in Norway is called ElRetur. El-Retur, which started on July 1, 1999, consists of two collaborating waste 

management companies, Hvitevareretur AS and Elektronikketur AS, which were established 

by their respective National Trade Associations in response to national legislation. This 

legislation from the Ministry of the Environment, passed on March 16, 1998 is titled 

“Regulations regarding Scrapped Electrical and Electronic Products.” It states that 

producers/importers of household appliances and electronics are required to provide takeback for recovery when scrapped by consumers and businesses.149

Both waste management companies, Hvitevareretur AS and Elektronikketur AS, are nonprofit organizations, and no dividends are paid out to the owners. The companies are run as 

independent administrative companies, which purchase and administer services relating to 

the collection and recycling of the WEEE products under their jurisdiction. For example, 

Hvitevareretur AS is responsible for the recovery of professional and domestic white goods, 

microwaves, and oil-filled heaters while Elektronikketur AS is responsible for the recovery 

of brown goods (audio-video), electrical and electronic games, medical equipment, office 

machinery, and telecommunications equipment. The El-Retur program negotiates contracts 

for 3-year periods with 6 logistics companies and 12 recycling companies, which provides 

100 percent geographical coverage for all of Norway.150

Under El-Retur, consumers may deliver WEEE free of charge, and without having to make a 

further purchase, to retailers who sell the same product as well as to municipalities regardless 

of the product type involved. Commercial enterprises may deliver WEEE to retailers who sell 

the same product in return for making a further purchase on a one-on-one basis. They may 

also deliver WEEE to municipalities, who may then impose a charge for such delivery. 

Collection equipment, including cages and containers, are provided free of charge to 

municipalities and dealers. Furthermore, El-Retur collects from these locations free of 

 

146 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 73. 147 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 74. 148 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 78. 149 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 88. 150 UK Department of Trade and Industry, pp. 88-89. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 69

charge, as well as from commercial enterprises such as workshops, waste companies, offices, 

industry and associated producers with payment on a discretionary basis. In Norway, there 

are six transport and logistic partners each covering a certain region of Norway, as well as 

five recycling partners who each cover certain geography. These recycling partners use 

subcontractors for specialist products (CFCs) or regions and there are a total of 12 recycling 

plants.151 In 2002, municipalities collected approximately 51 percent of WEEE, retailers 31 

percent, direct delivery to plants accounted for 4 percent, and other collection points were 

responsible for 14 percent of total WEEE collected under the El-Retur program.152

The El-Retur system operates 4 separate financing methods for different product categories--

one in Elektronikketur and one for Hvitevareretur. The three owner organizations under 

Elektronikketur AS have set up their own finance companies, which provide for monthly 

costs that are transferred from Elektronikketur based upon their respective product areas. 

Each of these finance companies has chosen a slightly different model for the collection of 

money. For example, Lydog Bilde Retur, the finance company for EE-bransjen, which is in 

charge of brown goods, collects money from the relevant importers/manufacturers on the 

basis of the type and number of brown goods sold to the Norwegian market. IKT Retur AS, 

the finance company for IKT-Norge, which is responsible for IT products, 

electronic/electrical games, and office machinery, uses a financing model that is based on 

invoicing actual costs. The costs are divided between the relevant importers and 

manufacturers on the basis of actual market share in respect of each individual product 

category. IT Retur AS, the financing company for Abelia, which is responsible for medical 

equipment, electronics, and telecom equipment, also uses this financing model where actual 

recycling costs are based on market share in respect to each individual product category. 

Hvitevareretur AS finances its system by collecting fixed environmental fees from its 

affiliated companies and cooperates in this respect with the Norwegian Directorate of 

Customs and Excise. Via the ordinary import and production customs clearance system, each 

affiliated company notifies products that are subject to fee. The fees are paid in connection 

with the companies’ payment of duties (VAT, etc.) and this system is unique in Europe and 

functions because Norway lies outside the European customs area. For example, in 2002, 

environmental fees accounted for NOK 87 million, which covers current and future 

commitments relating to the collection and recycling of WEEE. Visible fess are 

recommended, though voluntary, and industry is not allowed to impose the visible fee on 

retailers, but most retailers do choose to display the visible fee. The recycling fees are based 

on costs determined for 44 product groups and are applied in terms of what the actual 

collection and recycling costs are. Handling fees are included in the municipal waste fees for 

WEEE deposited at municipal collection sites and the general administration of municipal 

collection is financed by local taxes.153

 

151 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 89. 152 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 93. 153 UK Department of Trade and Industry, pp. 90-91. 
Technology Administration 

70 Recycling Technology Products

El-Retur collected and recycled over 35,000 tons of WEEE in 2002, amounting to more than 

8kg per head of population. Of this figure, Hvitevareretur contributed approximately 5 kg 

and Elektronikketur 3 kg per capita.154 This system currently meets the recycling targets set 

out in the WEEE Directive, as Table 7 shows. Hvitevareretur has a recycling rate of 88 

percent and Elektronikketur has a recycling rate of 81 percent.155 Norway also has the closest 

product scope in Europe to the WEEE Directive156

Table 7: El Retur Recycling of WEEE 2002 (%)157

 Elektronikketur AS Hvitevareretur AS 

Recycling 74% 79% 

Energy Recovery 14% 2% 

Disposal 9% 18% 

Thermal Destruction 3% 1% 

Rate of Recovery 81% 88% 

Sweden

(EPR for one-to-one take-back only managed through TPO, historic and orphan scrap 

financed and managed by the government) 

On July 1, 2001, Swedish producers and distributors created El Kretsen, a non-profit service 

provider, to represent themselves in an agreement with the Swedish Authorities to operate a 

voluntary nationwide take-back system. El Kretsen is a joint solution, which involves Local 

Regional Authorities, as well as the producers, manufacturers, importers, and retailers. This 

organization was created in response to Ordinance SFS 2000:208, which came into force on 

January 7, 2001, based on producer responsibility and provides for mandatory preliminary 

treatment of WEEE, as well as an obligation on the part of producers to set up a system of 

free take-back against purchase.158 Specifically, Swedish companies who import, 

manufacture, or sell electrical products must offer its customers, households and businesses, 

an opportunity to dispose of discarded products for recycling. 

Household collection centers, where consumers can dispose of electronic products free of 

charge, are financed by local authorities. El-Kretsen is responsible for financing the transport 

of the household waste from the collection centers and its recycling. It also is responsible for 

financing the collection, transport and recycling of WEEE from commercial consumers. 

Swedish law requires that the consumer has to see the total price of a product. Therefore, 

importers and producers add a special waste management charge to their invoices to cover 

costs of recovering products that are returned at the time of sale. 

 

154 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 90. 155 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 93. 156 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 96. 157 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 96 158 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 99. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 71

El-Kretsen is a limited company, owned by the professional federations from 20 sectors 

dealing with EE products. Although it is non-profit, it is required to have financial reserves 

available to compensate for short-term variations in levels of collection.159 This company is 

responsible for the following product groups160: 

• Household appliances 

• Hand and garden tools 

• IT and office equipment 

• Telecommunication equipment 

• Television, audio, and video equipment 

• Photographic equipment 

• Watches and clocks 

• Games and toys 

• Light sources and fittings for light sockets 

• Medical technical equipment 

• Laboratory equipment 

The following products are not covered under El-Kretsen161: 

• Freezers and Refrigerators 

• Fixed installed equipment for heating, cooling or ventilation 

• Permanently installed equipment (fuses, control devices, detectors) 

• Batteries (Separate system operates) 

• Dispensers 

• Production equipment (apart from electric hand tools) 

In Sweden, there are 650 household collection points for household WEEE and 300 for 

commercial customers, at least one collection point in each of the 289 municipalities where 

either household or commercial consumers can leave products free of charge. There is also 

collection provided for larger institutions and commercial enterprises, as well as additional 

locally designed systems of collection (curbside pickup, call systems, etc.), which are 

financed through municipal tax or other fees. Household consumers may return WEEE to any 

of the more than 600 collection sites that are paid for and administrated by municipalities 

free-of-charge. Commercial consumers may either return products to producers/retailers for a 

take-back against purchase or they may deposit the products free-of-charge at one of the 300 

business collection centers. El-Kretsen provides collection services on commission and gives 

companies an opportunity to deliver discarded products directly to the pre-treatment facilities 

contracted by El-Kretsen. El-Kretsen also collects disposed TVs, radios, videos, and other 

 

159 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 99. 160 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 99. 161 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 99.
Technology Administration 

72 Recycling Technology Products

products from stores and service workshops. This service is free for stores who have bought 

new products from producers that are members of El-Kretsen. More than 3,000 stores and 

workshops were affiliated with El-Kretsen in 2004. 

El-Kretsen is financed through membership fees. These fees are calculated from the volumes 

of new sales reported by the member companies. Since the legal requirements contain a wide 

range of products, El-Kretsen has designed adaptations that fit each industry sector in terms 

of fee structuring, product range and the level of collection service. There are two fixed fees: 

an Entrance Fee of SEK 3,500 per supplier and an annual membership fee of SEK 500 (in 

2006) In addition to this, the members pay flexible fees based on three models: a per unit 

charge based on the previous months sales; ICT products charge, described below; or other 

special models for certain industries, such as based on quarterly sales. The ICT products 

model involves El Kretsen AB calculating the actual costs for collecting and recycling ICT 

products. These actual costs are then divided among the suppliers in proportion to each 

supplier’s market share. The market share is defined as sales volume the previous quarter, 

express in tons. Previously, companies selling less than three tons were charged a standard 

fee. The ICT model also allows suppliers to finance the collection and recycling of their 

products themselves, as long as the recycling company is approved by El-Kretsen and 

verified through “recycling certificates.”162

Table 8 outlines the amount of electronic waste collected by El Kretsen in 2001 and where it 

ends up: 

Table 8: El Kretsen Material Recovery (2001)163

 Tons % of total collected 

Total Tonnage collected and sorted 60000 

Tonnage recovered and recycled 42000 70% 

Tonnage with energy recovery 12000 20% 

Tonnage in landfills 6000 10% 

Material recovery has increased by 10 percent in 2004: 87,000 total tonnage was collected 

and sorted, and 60,900 tonnage was recovered and recycled.164

Under El-Kretsen, local authorities are legally responsible for the recycling of historic WEEE 

and in 2003 assumed financial responsibility for all historic TV, audio, and video equipment 

because the brown goods sector withdrew from the El Kretsen system. This sector preferred 

to operate strictly according to the legislation at the time, which set out a new-for-old system 

with retailer collection. These products accounted at the time for approximately 10 percent of 

all WEEE, while El Kretsen processed the remaining 90 percent of the waste stream. El 

Kretsen estimated that costs for the transport, logistics, and recycling of this 10 percent 

 

162 El Kretsen Product List and Fees 2006-01-01, http://www.el-kretsen.se/ (April 18, 2006). 163 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 104. 164 El Kretsen AB Annual Report 2004-2005, February 2005. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 73

outside its system were twice of its costs for the remaining 90 percent.165 The brown goods 

sector criticized El Kretsen for its high costs for participation, however, El Kretsen took the 

position that it was a victim of its own success, because the large volumes the system 

collected imposed significantly higher costs than would otherwise be incurred under the legal 

minimum one-for-one take back obligation. It concedes that there was weak enforcement 

legislation as well.166

Switzerland 

(Producer-managed ARF, retailers, distributors and government collection financed by ARF, 

consumers obligated to return products) 

The Swiss Association for Information, Communications and Organization Technology 

(SWICO) system was set up following a Government initiative in Switzerland and a 

subsequent order was adopted to expand the system to all electronic products: ORDEA 

(Order on the return, take-back, and disposal of electrical and electronic equipment) of 

January 14, 1998 (RO 1998 827). Under this system, producers/importers have a take-back 

obligation, which is transferred to SWICO. Distributors and retailers have an obligation to 

take-back WEEE free of charge and households/firms to return out of service equipment. The 

regulations, however, do not impose any collection or recycling targets. This legislation is 

unique because it places a legal obligation on consumers to return out of use electrical and 

electronic equipment and not to dispose of such equipment in the municipal waste stream. 

Another organization, S.E.N.S., which is similar to SWICO, organizes the collection and 

recycling of household white goods, small domestic appliances, gardening equipment, tools 

and toys. This system is run by a separate trade association, but has collection and transport 

methods similar to SWICO and both systems share much of the infrastructure. Approval 

from the Swiss Government is required to export recycled goods.167

An environmental commission within the trade association runs SWICO. This commission 

groups together ten members, of which nine represent importers and producers of electronic 

and electrical equipment: (Afga-Gevaert, Canon, Excom, IBM, HP, Motorola, Phillips, Sun, 

and Xerox). The development and performance of the SWICO system is overseen by this 

commission in respect to setting the level of the Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF), monitoring 

financial balances, developing operational processes for collection and recycling, organizing 

public tenders for logistics and recycling centers, and organizational matters. The products 

covered under the SWICO system encompass the following product groups168: 

● Consumer electronics 

● Information technology and office equipment 

● Telecommunication equipment 

● Household appliances 

 

165 UK Department of Trade and Industry, pp. 106-107. 166 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 105. 167 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 109. 168 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 110. 
Technology Administration 

74 Recycling Technology Products

● Components originating from these types of equipment 

Households and firms can deposit used equipment at the point of sale, directly with 

producers/importers, and also at 340 accredited collection centers. Under the SWICO system, 

municipalities have no take-back obligation so they can either choose to not organize WEEE 

collection and simply inform end-users about alternative collection points or organize 

occasional, bi-annual WEEE collection which SWICO will provide transport pallets and 

finance all costs involved. Municipalities may also take discarded WEEE appliances and 

those goods not ‘actively collected’ to collection points free of charge. For municipalities that 

collect in excess of 5 tons per year, the municipal collection point is enlarged to become an 

official SWICO collection point. For transportation of these collected goods, SWICO has an 

agreement with a single transport firm to provide service for all of Switzerland. 16 private 

firms are contracted to conduct recycling of collected WEEE and they are selected by 

invitation to tender for a period of two years.169

The SWICO system is financed via an Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF) and its levels are 

determined on the basis of an assessment of the quantity of items of equipment collected and 

transport/recovery costs. Table 9 shows the contribution per unit, including tax. These 

contributions are paid by distributors and producers on a bi-annual basis of the amount of 

equipment put onto the market. These fees are then invoiced to the consumer at the point of 

sale and are shown on the invoice.170 Revenues and expenses are booked separately for each 

product sector and each operates autonomously to ensure no cross-sector subsidies.171 In 

2002, approximately 75 percent of costs in the SWICO system were spent on recycling and 

treatment of WEEE, with only 14 percent spent upon logistics and transport. This is a 

significantly lower proportion than other European systems and is primarily due to the 

regional configuration of the SWICO system, where average transport costs are based upon 

30km haulage.172

In 2002, SWICO collected and processed approximately 24,000 tons of WEE, with 58 

percent of these products being collected at the point of sale. Of the remaining WEEE, 18 

percent was collected from producers/importers and 24 percent direct from the 340 

accredited collection centers. A majority (69.60 percent) of the goods collected represented 

IT and office equipment, and nearly 30 percent of the WEEE volume by weight was made up 

of consumer electronics.173 There are no legal targets for recycling of WEEE, but SWICO 

states that all collected products are recycled.174 Furthermore, since Switzerland belongs 

neither to the EU nor the EEA, SWICO is not obliged and does not intend to change its 

operational structure in accordance with the WEEE Directive. However, it does want to

 

169 UK Department of Trade and Industry, pp. 110-111. 170 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 111. 171 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 112. 172 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 116. 173 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 114. 174 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 115. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 75

Table 9: SWICO Fixed Fee Rate per Item175

Item176 Fixed Fee Rate177

TV sets €10-20 

Complete audio/DVD installations €6.85 

Separate audio/video items €3.42 

Portable equipment €1.37 

Professional equipment (> €6850) €13.7 

operate in a manner in accordance with European best practice as well as to allow better 

integration of the Swiss system into the EU model, so there are plans underway, with Swiss 

authorities, to reclassify waste according to the categories in the directive.178

Australia 

In Australia, the electrical and electronic industry associations are developing an industrywide voluntary product stewardship strategy. Their work is being guided by a working group 

composed of representatives of the commonwealth, state and territory environmental 

agencies, the Australian Industry Group, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and 

Industry. The industry-led voluntary stewardship strategy will address environmental issues 

in five consumer product categories179: 

● Personal computers and peripherals 

● Televisions, video cassette recorders, and home entertainment electronics 

● Major household appliances 

● Small appliances 

● Lamps 

There is also consideration by state environment ministers in Australia, with the support of 

major television manufacturers, to introduce a plan that would impose an $18.75 ($US) 

recycling fee on the sale of new televisions. Funds that were collected via this fee would be 

used to develop and administer a national recycling system for televisions. Members of the 

 

175 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 112. 176 For IT and Telecom equipment, a fee is charged according to the retail cost of the product, based upon 10 

retail price bands. 

177 Consumer goods priced less than €35.00 are not subject to the ARF. 178 UK Department of Trade and Industry, p. 120. 179 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Product Stewardship: International Initiatives website, 

http://www.epa.gov/epr/products/eintern.html, (November 13, 2004). 
Technology Administration 

76 Recycling Technology Products

television manufacturing industry expect that the fee level would drop once the recycling 

system has disposed of historic and orphan waste products.180

Furthermore, in compliance with the Basel Convention, Australia passed the Hazardous 

Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act of 1989. This Act was amended in 1996 to 

allow Australia to better comply with Basel, but as of 2004 the Australian Department of the 

Environment and Heritage was still “working with industry to enhance controls on electronic 

scrap exports, including developing a process to determine whether electronic equipment 

should be managed as waste under the Act.”181 This work also involves the Australian 

Government continuing its dialogue and work with industry and state governments to 

develop a national product stewardship approach to managing electrical and electronic waste. 

There are pilot recycling projects by state and territory governments in Sydney and 

Melbourne as well.182

Canada 

Sixteen leading IT and electronics companies have joined forces to create Electronics 

Product Stewardship Canada (EPS Canada), which is a non-profit organization that will 

design, promote, and implement sustainable solutions for Canada’s electronic waste problem. 

The organization is currently consulting with governments, consumers, and other 

stakeholders across Canada to design appropriate programs for safe reuse and recycling of 

equipment such as personal computers, laptops, printers, and television products. EPS 

Canada expected to launch its first end-of-life management program in 2004. Founding 

members of the organization include Apple, Brother International Corporation, Canon, Dell, 

Epson, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi, IBM, Lexmark, LG Electronics, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sharp, 

Sony, Thompson, and Toshiba. Participating industry associations include the Information 

Technology Association of Canada and Electro-Federation Canada.183

Legislative responsibility in Canada lies with the provinces and territories. Alberta 

announced on May 6, 2004 that it was launching Canada’s first provincial electronics 

recycling program. Retailers began collecting an ARF called an “environmental fee” ranging 

from CAD $5-$45 in February 2005. Consumers pay an additional CAD $5 for laptop 

computers, while televisions 46 inches or larger receive the CAD $45 fee. These fees are 

then used to fund collection at no cost to the consumer, transport, recycling by “qualified” 

processors, research into better recycling technologies, as well as a consumer education 

 

180 Northwest Product Stewardship Council, Electronic Equipment and Product Stewardship: International 

Policies and Legislation, http://www.productstewardship.net/policiesElectronicsIntl.html, (November 13, 2004) 181 Australian Department of Environment and Heritage, Annual Report 2003-2004, pp. 610-612, 

http://www.deh.gov.au/about/annual-report/03-04/pubs/hazardous-waste.pdf. 182 Australian Department of Environment and Heritage, p. 94. 183 Electronic Products Stewardship Canada, http://www.epsc.ca/about.html.
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 77

program. The program is administered by the Alberta Recycling Management Authority, 

which is a TPO.184

Taiwan 

(Government managed system financed by producers CI or PCI) 

Recycling policies implemented in 1998 made Taiwan the first country to require the 

recycling of used computer hardware, including central processing units, monitors, and 

notebook computers. Consumers can return used hardware to one of 600 take-back stations, 

operated around the country, or to a recycling company or municipal recycling facility, 

where the hardware is disassembled and separated for reuse or recycling. As of October 

2000, roughly 1.4 million used computers had been recycled, and officials of Taiwan’s 

Environmental Protection Administration said that they were achieving a recycling rate of 

approximately 75 percent of all used computers. In 2001, Taiwan added printers to the list of 

equipment that must be recycled.185

In Taiwan, local government collects the products and also arranges for recycling of 

products, with the Federal government providing funds to local government for these 

services. OEM’s paying fees to government based upon product sales finance this system, 

and the companies either internalize the costs or pass them on to the consumer. The 

government sets the level of the fees as a result of the recycling costs, and consumers may 

return products free-of-charge.186

 

184 Electronics Recycling Alberta, www.albertarecycling.ca, and Northwest Product Stewardship Council, 

Electronic Equipment and Product Stewardship: International Policies and Legislation website. 

http://www.productstewardship.net/policiesElectronicsIntl.html. 185 Rosenbach, p. 5 186 National Electronics Products Stewardship Initiative, Financing and Infrastructure Model Characteristics p. 

3. 
Technology Administration 

78 Recycling Technology Products

APPENDIX II 

U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AND REGULATION 

U.S. Federal Solid Waste Management Regulations 

Hazardous Waste 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), pronounced "rick-rah", enacted by 

Congress in 1976, gave EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-tograve." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of 

hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of municipal solid 

wastes. 

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to 

RCRA that required, among other things, limitations on the land disposal of hazardous waste. 

Some of the other mandates of this strict law include increased enforcement authority for 

EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a corrective action 

program for facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. 

Under regulations promulgated by EPA, a waste is considered hazardous if it is ignitable 

(i.e., burns readily), corrosive, or reactive (e.g., explosive). Waste may also be considered 

hazardous if it contains certain amounts of toxic chemicals. Toxicity is determined through 

the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The TCLP test determines which 

materials are likely to leach containments in an acidic environment modeled after municipal 

solid waste landfills and thus would leach into surrounding water that would be harmful to 

human health or the environment. In addition to these characteristic wastes, EPA has also 

developed a list of over 500 specific hazardous wastes. Hazardous waste takes many physical 

forms and may be solid, semi-solid, liquid, or even contained gases. EPA regulations also 

contain exclusions for certain wastes from the definition of solid waste or hazardous waste. 

In addition, EPA has developed streamlined rules for particular wastes, including recyclable 

wastes and universal wastes such as batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and 

lamps that are widely generated by different industries. 

The RCRA hazardous waste program regulates commercial businesses as well as Federal, 

state and local government facilities that generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of 

hazardous waste. Each of these entities is regulated to ensure proper management of 

hazardous waste from the moment it is generated until its ultimate disposal or destruction. 

RCRA does not regulate residential waste, even when it contains hazardous materials. EPA 

has also exempted businesses that produce less then 220 pounds of hazardous waste a month 

under the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) rule, provided certain 

limited conditions are met. 

Handlers of hazardous waste must meet certain regulatory requirements. Generators and 

transporters must have government issued identification numbers, and comply with other 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 79

regulations regarding the handling of hazardous waste. Treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities must meet even more stringent requirements, and must have a permit to operate. 

The RCRA municipal solid waste program also regulates owners and operators of municipal 

solid waste landfills. The regulations stipulate minimum criteria that each landfill must meet 

in order to continue operating. 

State Authority 

EPA may authorize qualified states to administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste 

program within the state. Following authorization, states implement the program in lieu of 

EPA, although EPA retains enforcement authority. RCRA also authorizes EPA to approve 

states to implement the minimum criteria for municipal solid waste landfills. 

Non-Hazardous Municipal Solid Waste 

EPA Household hazardous wastes, like mineral spirits and old paint, are not regulated under 

the Federal hazardous waste program. Many communities provide collection centers or pickup services for the management of household hazardous waste. Generally, the only hazardous 

waste that municipal landfills can accept is household hazardous waste and waste from 

conditionally exempt small quantity generators. 

The Universal Waste Rule 

In May 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Universal 

Waste Rule to reduce the amount of hazardous wastes entering the municipal solid waste 

stream, encourage the recycling and proper disposal of certain common hazardous wastes, 

and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses that generate these wastes by simplifying the 

applicable regulations and making them easier to comply with. This rule recognized that 

some common hazardous wastes do not require the full array of hazardous waste collection 

and management requirements. It also eased the regulatory burden on waste handlers and 

transporters by streamlining a number of RCRA’s hazardous waste collection and 

management requirements, including those related to notification, labeling/marking, 

accumulation time limits, employee training, and offsite shipment, among others. 

The Universal Waste Rule does not automatically apply in each state. In states authorized by 

the EPA to implement the Federal hazardous waste program, the rule is not applicable until 

those states revise their programs to adopt equivalent requirements under state law. Hence, 

manufacturers, transporters and recyclers theoretically may have to comply with varying, and 

sometimes conflicting, waste management regulations. 

Proposed Regulation of Cathode Ray Tubes 

CRTs are likely considered to be hazardous waste under Federal law when they are sent for 

disposal by non-household entities of entities generating more than 220 pounds of hazardous 

waste a month. According to a study of CRTs published by the University of Florida, the 

average concentration of lead in leachate from colored CRT glass generated through the 

EPA’s TCLP was 22.2 milligrams per liter. This level is considerably above the toxicity 

characteristic regulatory level of 5 milligrams per liter that is used to classify lead-containing 
Technology Administration 

80 Recycling Technology Products

wastes as hazardous. TCLP is a worst-case scenario test in an acidic environment designed to 

simulate landfill conditions. 

In June 2002, EPA proposed a rule to streamline RCRA management requirements for CRTs 

going into recycling. Under the proposed rule, CRTs and the processed glass from CRTs 

would be subject to reduced requirements for storage, transportation and processing when 

sent for recycling. The purpose for the proposal is to encourage greater reuse, recycling, and 

better management of this growing waste stream. The rule is expected to be finalized in 

2005. 

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 states that companies that donate personal computers to 

schools qualify for an enhanced charitable deduction benefit. The law, introduced by 

Representative Randy Cunningham (R-California), expanded tax incentives for private 

companies that donate computer technology, equipment, or software to K-12 classrooms. The 

act took effect January 1, 1998, and applies to computers less than two years old. 

National Legislation Introduced in Congress 

Several bills were introduced in Congress relating to e-waste in 2005, include the ones 

described below. In May 2005, a new Congressional Working Group on Electronic Device 

Recycling was announced led by Congresswoman Bono of California, Congresswoman 

Slaughter of New York, Congressman Thompson of California, and Congressman 

Cunningham of California. Also in 2005, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, held the first Congressional 

hearing on e-waste July 20 and then held a second hearing on September 8. The Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste 

Management, held an oversight hearing July 26. Statements from the many government, 

industry, and nonprofit witnesses are available on the Committees’ websites.187

Tax Incentives to Encourage Recycling (TIER) Act of 2005 

HR 4553, introduced by Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (D-California) in 2004, 

proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives to encourage 

manufacturers of computer and television equipment to operate an environmentally sound 

recycling program for use by consumers who want to discard equipment. This legislation 

would provide a recycling equipment credit, determined by the type of item, for central 

processing units ($4), monitors ($4), printers ($4), mice and keyboards ($1), and televisions 

($4). Reintroduced as HR 320 in 2005, it included cell phones and chargers ($1). 

National Computer Recycling Act 

HR 1165 (National Computer Recycling Act), introduced by Representative Mike Thompson 

(D-California) in 2003, and reintroduced as HR 425 in 2005, would introduce a grant and fee 

program through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to encourage and promote the 

 

187 Find statements of witnesses at energycommerce.house.gov and epw.senate.gov. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 81

recycling of used computers. It would also promote the development of a national 

infrastructure for the recycling of used computers and other purposes. In particular, this 

legislation directs the Administrator of the EPA to require assessment of a fee to an end-user 

on the sale of any computer, monitor, or other designated electronic devices. This assessment 

would come after the EPA submits a study to Congress of the waste materials in used 

computers that may be hazardous to human health or the environment. Consumers would pay 

fees of up to $10 each on these products. Fees collected would be used for the administration 

of this Act (a maximum of ten percent of fees to cover administration) and also would be 

used to finance grants for collecting or processing used computers, monitors, or other devices 

for recycling. In addition, it would be used to finance grants for reusing or reselling such 

products and extracting and using, or selling for reuse, raw materials from these products. 

There is a reporting requirement built into this legislation, which mandates reports to 

Congress on the status of computer recycling, which would include descriptions of fee 

collection and use.188

The Electronic Waste Recycling and Promotion and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 

Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Jim Talent (R-Missouri) introduced a bill in 2005 to 

offer tax incentives to recycle electronics and make recommendations for a nationwide 

recycling system. The proposed legislation would direct the EPA to conduct a cost-benefit 

analysis of various e-waste recycling programs, and to advise Congress on the feasibility of 

establishing a nationwide recycling program that preempts any state plan within one year. It 

would establish an $8.00 per unit tax credit for companies that recycle at least 5,000 display 

screen or computer system units per year and a $15.00 tax credit for consumers who recycle 

their old computers and televisions, provided they use qualified recyclers. It would ban 

disposal of any electronic equipment containing a display screen greater than four inches or 

any computer system unit in a municipal solid waste landfill, starting three years after the bill 

is passed, and is contingent on EPA’s Administrator finding that a majority of U.S. 

households have reasonable access to e-waste recycling. It would also require Federal 

agencies to ensure that every display screen or system unit procured by the Federal 

government is recovered and recycled. 

The Administration has not taken a position on any of these bills or the need for Federal 

legislation at this time. 

 

188 Office of Representative Mike Thompson, Press Release on Legislation to Set Up Computer Recycling 

Program, July 18, 2002. 
Technology Administration 

82 Recycling Technology Products

APPENDIX III 

NATIONAL ELECTRONICS PRODUCT 

STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE (NEPSI) 

Background 

The National Electronics Products Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI)189 was created in April 

2001 as a multi-stakeholder dialogue aimed at developing a national financing system to 

maximize the reuse and recycling of used televisions, monitors, computers, and associated 

computer accessories (i.e. mice, keyboards, printers, etc.)190. EPA initiated and funded the 

start of the dialogue. It was convened and facilitated by the University of Tennessee’s Center 

for Clean Products and Clean Technologies (CCPCT).191 NEPSI included representatives 

from multinational electronics manufacturers, representatives from state government, and 

representatives from recycling, environmental, and other groups. Participants in NEPSI, in a 

meeting on June 21-22, 2001, agreed by consensus that the group would promote product 

stewardship, which means that those involved in producing, selling, or using a product have a 

role in managing it at the end of its useful life.192 The group also advocated the principle of 

shared responsibility by all parties for the management of end-of-life electronics. 

The participants in the NEPSI dialogue agreed to meet six times over the course of the next 

year, with these meetings rotating around the country to incorporate the participation of state 

and local agencies.193 NEPSI divided the group into a Stakeholder Group, which was made 

up of representatives from all participants in the NEPSI process, and a Core Group. 

Subgroups were also created, which dealt with specific issues such as financing; regulatory 

issues; and collection, reuse, and recycling infrastructure, among other topics.194 The work of 

these subgroups was reported at subsequent meetings and proposals and/or issues were voted 

upon by the assembled group of stakeholders. Stakeholders met 13 times through February 

2004, with eight meetings comprised of the entire stakeholder group, as well as holding 

numerous conference calls. 

Initially, the dialogue explored the possibility of whether voluntary programs could provide a 

solution. As the dialogue evolved to the point where the stakeholders were seriously 

considering a joint effort to lobby for Federal legislation, EPA withdrew its participation and 

funding out of concern that its continued involvement would raise questions with antilobbying restrictions applicable to EPA staff and EPA grantees. The NEPSI dialogue 

continued with alternative funding in 2004. The decisions and views of NEPSI described 

 

189 Further information and documents related to NEPSI can be found at www.nepsi.org. 190 National Electronics Products Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI), NEPSI Draft Meeting Notes: June 21-22, 

2001 Meeting in San Francisco, CA, p. 2, www.nepsi.org (November 10, 2004). 

191 For more information see www.cleanproducts.org. 192 NEPSI Draft Meeting Notes: June 21-22, 2001, pp, 2-3. 193 NEPSI Press Release, June 29, 2001. 194 NEPSI, Roadmap for NEPSI Process Draft October 9, 2001. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 83

below do not represent those of the U.S. Department of Commerce or the Administration, 

which has not taken a position on these issues. 

12 Models for a National Financing System 

The main goal for the NEPSI discussions is reflected in an agreement from its June 22, 2001 

meeting: “the development of a system, which includes a viable financing mechanism, to 

maximize the collection, reuse, and recycling of used electronics, while considering 

appropriate incentives to design products that facilitate source reduction, reuse, and 

recycling; reduce toxicity; and increase recycled content.”195 In keeping with this goal, the 

group discussed many different models on how to structure a national financing system for 

reusing and recycling electronics products. NEPSI started with as many as twelve models, 

with systems ranging from a consumer mail-in program, to a deposit/refund system, to a 

producer-administered fund. What follows are brief descriptions, as well as advantages and 

disadvantages expressed by the NEPSI stakeholders of the original 12 models that were 

considered. 196

General Tax Based Funding 

Under this model, the public would pay for the state/local government to collect, transport, 

and recycle electronics products through a tax or monthly fee. The government would collect 

and transport the products and recycle them either through a contractor or their own facilities. 

This model, using general tax based funding, could be easily implemented, as there is the 

potential to include electronics recycling as part of residents’ monthly waste collection fees. 

However, this model shifts the end-of-life costs of electronics products to taxpayers, rather 

than the consumers of the products.197

Government/Retailer Collection, Producers Transport & Recycle 

In this model, the collection, transport, and recycling is financed through either a fee at the 

point of sale of new products or a payment at the time of recycling. Under this system, 

governments, retailers, and contractors would collect the products with taxpayers or the 

consumers paying for the service. As mentioned, taxpayers would pay either through a tax or 

a monthly fee, or consumers would pay through a fee at the time of drop-off. Producers or 

contractors would transport and recycle the products, with producers providing financing for 

these services. Producers would pay for transport and recycling either with a fee on the sale 

of new products or by internalizing the cost. 

Government/Retailer Collection, Contractor Transport & Recycling 

In another model discussed by NEPSI, the government and retailers would collect electronics 

products with the consumer paying a fee at the time of disposal. This fee would be paid at the 

collection site and a contractor would be responsible for transporting and recycling the 

products. The disposal fee paid by the consumer would pay for collection, transport, and 

recycling costs. 

 

195 NEPSI, Roadmap for NEPSI Process Draft October 9, 2001, p.1. 196 NEPSI, Models of Collection, Transport, Recycling and Financing. 197 NEPSI, Summary of NEPSI Stakeholder Comments on Financing Models. 
Technology Administration 

84 Recycling Technology Products

Consumer Mail-In Program 

This model involves a mail-in program for consumers to return their electronics products to 

the producer or a contractor. The producer or contractor would collect the products via mail 

with the consumer paying a fee at the time of mail-in that would finance the collection, 

transport, and recycling of the products. The benefit of this model is that it provides 

opportunities for collection of electronics products in rural communities as well as for elderly 

or disabled persons. However, a mail-in program does not support local processing of 

products and could be quite expensive unless there are regional recycling facilities 

available.198

Advanced Disposal Fee Finances Entire System 

Under this model, the consumer would pay for the collection, transport, and recycling of 

electronics products through an Advanced Disposal Fee (ADF) included in the purchase of 

new products. Governments, producers, and/or contractors would collect, transport, and 

recycle the products, all of which are funded by the ADF paid by consumers. 

Deposit/Refund System 

This model is a deposit/refund system, which would involve the consumers making a deposit 

at the time of purchase of a new product, and in a refund upon return the product. The refund 

would be less than the deposit, thus funding the system. The governments and retailers would 

collect, while governments, retailers, and/or their contractors would transport the products to 

recycling centers. Producers and/or their contractors would recycle the products. 

Retailer Collection, Shared Costs with Producers 

In this model, the retailers and/or their contractors would collect products at their locations 

and transport them, with producers and/or their contractors recycling the products. This 

system would involve shared costs between producers, retailers and consumers, with the 

consumers paying a fee at the time of drop-off and retailers/producers charge a fee on the 

purchase of new products to cover the system. Consumers would return their products to 

retail locations for collection and transport to producer/contractor recycling facilities, and 

fees paid by retailers, consumers, and retailers would finance the system. 

Producer Administered Advanced Recovery Fee System 

This model involves a system which would be administered by the producers and financed by 

an advanced fee at the time of purchase. For example, governments and retailers would 

collect the products and would be reimbursed by a fund setup by the producers. This fund 

would also provide financing for producers and/or their contractors to transport and recycle 

these products. 

Government Collection & Transport, Recycling by Producers 

This model involves a system in which the government collects and transports e-waste and 

the producers recycle. Under this system, the government or contractor(s) would collect and 

transport the products. Collection and transport would be financed through a tax, a monthly 

fee on the taxpayer, or a drop-off fee on consumers at the time of drop-off. Producers would 

 

198 NEPSI, Summary of NEPSI Stakeholder Comments on Financing Models. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 85

recycle these products at their expense. The producers have the option, under this system, of 

internalizing the cost or increasing the price of products to the consumer. 

This system could take advantage of existing local government infrastructure for collection 

and transport. However, there were concerns that the existing infrastructure might not be 

suited for the influx of electronics products that would occur under this system. Other 

benefits of this system that were identified were that it would be a familiar system to 

consumers, producers, and government. It would also shift the responsibility for recycling to 

producers, which could encourage design for environment changes. But there were also 

concerns that this system could increase the tax burden on state governments, that there is no 

incentive to make the entire system economically or environmentally efficient, or that endof-life fees may encourage illegal dumping or disposal of products.199 The end-of-life fees 

would also be innately regressive in that lower income users and charities might often be the 

ultimate end-user and thus would have to fund the majority of the nation’s recycling.200

Advanced Recovery Fee Finances Collection & Transport 

Under this model, financed through an Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF), the government and 

retailers collect and transport products, with producers responsible for recycling. The 

consumer would pay an ARF at the point of purchase of new electronic products and these 

fees would go into a fund that would pay retailers and/or government for the collection and 

transport of old products to recycling centers. The producers would cover the costs of 

recycling, either by recycling themselves or paying a contractor. Since the producer is 

responsible for recycling, it provides incentives for producers to design products that are 

more easily recycled. This model also does not require a consumer drop-off fee or an end-oflife fee, which would be convenient for consumers, and shifts costs from the taxpayer to the 

consumers and producers. 

On the other hand, there were concerns with this model as it breaks the system of collection, 

transport, and recycling into different cost components, which adds complications.201

Another major concern with this system is that the system does not take advantage of market 

forces: there is no incentive built into the system that maximizes the strengths of recycling 

infrastructure. Furthermore, the system does not deal with historic/orphan waste products. 

The system would also require legislation to levy a consistent national fee at the point of 

sale.202

Deposit Refund System Finances Collection & Transport 

The financing system under this model would be a deposit/refund system, which would pay 

for collection and transport, while the producers would be responsible for recycling. The 

consumers would pay a deposit fee on the purchase of new products and would receive a 

 

199 NEPSI, Models of Collection, Transport, Recycling and Financing: Pro’s/Con’s Identified at the June 21-22 

NEPSI Meeting. 

200 NEPSI, Summary of Stakeholder Comments on Financing Models, June 22, 2001. 201 NEPSI, Summary of Stakeholder Comments on Financing Models, June 22, 2001. 202 NEPSI, Models of Collection, Transport, Recycling and Financing: Pro’s/Con’s Identified at the June 21-22 

NEPSI Meeting. 
Technology Administration 

86 Recycling Technology Products

lesser refund when returning the product, thus financing collection and transport. 

Governments and retailers would collect the products; governments, retailers, and/or 

contractors would transport the products to recycling centers. The producers or contractors 

would be responsible for the recycling, which producers would fund either through a fee 

included in the purchase price of new products or internalizing the cost.203

One possible benefit of this model is that it provides a refund, which could encourage 

consumers to return products. This system is also familiar to consumers as it is used with 

bottles, and as with bottles, the system might encourage collection and discourage illegal 

dumping. With electronics products, however, it would be easier to track brands and 

administer the system than in a bottle system. On the other hand, there was concern that this 

program would be overly bureaucratic, as it requires multiple levels of administration.204

There is also the issue of breaking the system down into different cost components, which 

adds complications.205 Also, with this system there is a time-lag issue as electronics and 

historic waste are not returned in a matter of weeks, as with bottles, but in a matter of years 

and this could bankrupt the system if it is not sustainable. The issue of how to apply this 

system to Internet sales is an additional concern; it would require legislation both to set up 

the fee and to address Internet sales. This model also reduces the incentive for producers to 

design products for the environment and may not be as flexible a system as other options.206

Producers Finance Collection, Transport, & Recycling 

This model involves a system where the producer pays for the collection, transport, and 

recycling of electronics products. It would be funded by the producers either imposing a fee 

on the consumer on the purchase of new products or by producers internalizing the cost. 

Governments, retailers, and/or contractors would collect the products, with the producers 

and/or their contractors transporting and recycling the products. This model uses price 

mechanisms as a consumer signal; it could drive consumer education by the imposition of a 

free on the product at time of purchase. It also incorporates mechanisms to encourage 

producers to design products for the environment. 

Some concerns expressed with this system were that it does not incorporate a role for an 

informed consumer, it does not bolster the economic base for recycling in the U.S, there is less 

of a role for government to develop a consumer education campaign on recycling products, and 

that there is not a shared responsibility for collection, transport, and recycling costs.207

 

203 NEPSI, Summary of NEPSI Stakeholder Comments on Financing Models. 204 NEPSI, Models of Collection, Transport, Recycling and Financing: Pro’s/Con’s Identified at the June 21-22 

NEPSI Meeting. 

205 NEPSI, Summary of NEPSI Stakeholder Comments on Financing Models. 206 NEPSI, Models of Collection, Transport, Recycling and Financing: Pro’s/Con’s Identified at the June 21-22 

NEPSI Meeting. 

207 NEPSI, Models of Collection, Transport, Recycling and Financing: Pro’s/Con’s Identified at the June 21-22 

NEPSI Meeting. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 87

Hybrid Advanced Recovery Fee/Partial Cost Internalization Model 

Following the June 2002 meeting, the NEPSI group tasked a smaller, representative group of 

stakeholders (referred to as the “G12”) to come up with compromise financing models, 

derived from the discussions of the 12 models. During the course of nine months, the G12 

distilled the models down to four: an advanced recovery fee system, a partial cost 

internalization system, a concurrent systems model (which would allow manufacturers to 

select either the ARF or PCI system), and a hybrid of advanced recovery fees and partial cost 

internalization.208 Upon analysis of the four models, the stakeholders decided that the 

concurrent systems model was far too complex, and chose the hybrid model as the most 

likely model for NEPSI stakeholder consensus. 

The hybrid model incorporates both an Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF) system, with the 

option for an Alternative System and a transition into a Partial Cost Internalization (PCI). 

This model envisions that after a national ARF system has been in effect for seven years, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would convene a multi-stakeholder panel to review 

and assess the demonstrated benefits of the ARF. Following this panel, recommendations 

would be made to the EPA regarding a transition into a PCI system.209

The ARF, which would not exceed $10 per product, would be assessed on all NEPSI 

products (enumerated in the February 26, 2004, NEPSI Compromise Resolution, including 

used televisions, monitors, computers, and associated computer accessories such as mice, 

keyboards, printers, etc.) sold in the United States regardless of manufacturer and type of 

sale, unless the manufacturer is operating under an approved Alternative System. NEPSI 

stakeholders understood that Federal legislation would be required to implement the ARF on 

a national level. Not only would legislation be required to apply the fee but to apply it across 

the board and limit free riders within the system. The ARF on TV’s and computers would be 

higher to subsidize smaller items and the ARF would be sufficient to cover products of 

participating manufacturers as well as orphan products in terms of collection, transportation, 

and processing. Upon collection, a non-governmental Third Party Organization (TPO) would 

deposit the fee into a trust account, which would be separate from the Federal Government 

Treasury, and managed by the TPO. This TPO would have the authority to recommend a 

reduction in the ARF but not an increase, as the fee could not be increased above $10. The 

TPO would be required to be a nonprofit organization that would be managed by a Board of 

Directors appointed by the EPA Administrator. The TPO’s ARF account would be audited 

annually and a copy of the audit would be submitted each year on 30 June to the TPO, EPA, 

and Congress. In conjunction with the audit, the TPO would further prepare its own report 

regarding the Trust Fund balance; the volume of NEPSI products collected and processed, 

the ability of the current fund to meet processing needs, and other responsibilities.210

A producer that would prefer to forego an ARF on its products would have the option of 

implementing an Alternative System. It would submit its plan for approval to the appropriate 

government agency, most likely the EPA. The proposal would have to outline a system 

 

208 NEPSI, Brief Summary of Frameworks. 209 NEPSI, NEPSI System Transition. 210 NEPSI, Meeting Notes of the Full Stakeholder Group, Portland, Oregon, February 10-11, 2004.
Technology Administration 

88 Recycling Technology Products

equivalent to the ARF base level of service and would include some responsibility for orphan 

products. For example, a particular company would have to demonstrate that its program 

would collect its own products plus an appropriate share of orphan electronics and would 

also have to internally fund all orphan associated costs that would have previously been 

funded by the ARF. In addition, the Alternative System would have to resolve the disparity 

in equivalence, as the ARF system is proportional to sales while the Alternative System is 

proportional to collection levels.211

Under PCI, producers would be responsible for funding transportation from a point of 

consolidation and funding the actual processing of products. In theory, an ARF would 

provide funds needed to jump-start the recycling effort and handle a majority of orphaned 

products, but through the eventual transition to PCI, it would also provide competition to 

lower costs and promote DfE. However, there is the likelihood that orphan products will still 

exist after the transition to a PCI system so the responsibility for these goods would 

somehow have to be divided amongst manufacturers. Additional concerns with this system 

mirror concerns with similar models such as how the ARF will be enforced on Internet sales 

and how the ARF will be applied to products sold in the U.S. by foreign-owned companies. 

There are also the issues of which entity will regulate the collection of products and where it 

will occur (curbside pickup, drop-offs, retailers, etc.). Another potential concern is if an ARF 

will be enough to fund adequate and efficient collection, transport, and recycling of products. 

An additional issue is under what conditions the EPA would recommend transition to a PCI 

system rather than an ARF system, and what timeline and procedure is to be followed for the 

transition to a PCI system. A final consideration is related to the measurement and 

standardization of commodities recycled and how to compare success between systems if 

companies opt to use an Alternative system rather than the ARF system.212

While the Hybrid System was selected as the most likely system for NEPSI consensus, there 

were some disagreements among the NEPSI stakeholders over the financing system 

mentioned above.213 NEPSI’s last meeting was convened on February 10-11, 2004, where it 

adopted a Compromise Resolution on the NEPSI financing model, reprinted below. The 

Stakeholders agreed to reconvene after industry reached an agreement on the financing 

method. The Compromise Resolution214 below was agreed to by NEPSI participants and does 

not reflect the views of the Federal Government. 

 

211 NEPSI, Meeting Notes of the Full Stakeholder Group, Portland, Oregon, February 10-11, 2004. 212 NEPSI, Meeting Notes of the Full Stakeholder Group, Portland, Oregon, February 10-11, 2004. 213 NEPSI, Meeting Notes of the Full Stakeholder Group, Portland, Oregon, February 10-11, 2004. 214 NEPSI Compromise Resolution, February 26, 2004. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 89

This document is subject to change by the NEPSI participants. 

NEPSI Compromise Resolution

2/26/04

Based on the information and knowledge gathered during the three years of study 

and deliberation of the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative 

(NEPSI), the NEPSI group at the February 10/11, 2004 meeting in Portland, 

Oregon, adopts the following resolution: 

Whereas, the University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean 

Technologies, under a cooperative agreement with EPA, convened the NEPSI process 

with an unprecedented group of multi-stakeholders covering a range of interests in 

electronics stewardship including manufacturers, recyclers, state and local 

governments, environmental organizations, academia and others to provide guidance 

on the development of a national system for electronics management; 

Whereas, it is the desire of the NEPSI group to establish a national system to collect, 

transport and process consumer electronics in a manner that is protective of human 

health and the environment, and one that is economically sustainable and market 

driven; 

Whereas, the NEPSI group has explored a broad range of issues, options and 

approaches to developing such a national system through the eight formal NEPSI 

meetings, countless conference calls, technical working documents and other 

communications during the past three years; 

Whereas, this resolution builds upon approaches outlined in the technical working 

documents developed during the NEPSI process, including the document currently 

referred to as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and other technical 

working documents attached thereto; and 

Whereas, the NEPSI process has concluded with agreement on many of the 

principles that must be incorporated into a national electronics management system. 

The NEPSI participants acknowledge that there are important issues, including details 

of the financing mechanism, which remain to be finalized. 

Therefore, 

Be it resolved that the NEPSI group adopts this resolution as guidance on 

establishing a national electronics management system, and recommends and 

supports the creation of such a system to ensure a level playing field and the 

environmentally sound management of used electronics provided that the first action 

to be undertaken and resolved is the following: 
Technology Administration 

90 Recycling Technology Products

--industry finalizes a consensus agreement on a financing model supported by a 

significant portion of the market share of both the information technology (IT) and 

consumer electronics (CE) sectors. 

--the proposed industry financing model shall cover the following scope of products 

as endorsed by the NEPSI stakeholders on February 10, 2004. 

TV/TV Monitors (CRTs and flat panels) 

Stand alone computer CRT and flat panel monitors greater than 9 inches 

Laptop/notebook computers 

CPUs 

Small peripherals (mice, keyboards, cables, speakers) [no fee] 

Consumer desktop devices (printers and multifunction devices) 

--the industry financing model is vetted through a process to be determined to decide 

whether and when to reconvene and complete work on the national system. 

Provided further that work will commence on all remaining NEPSI technical working 

documents and issues once this financing model has been accepted by the NEPSI 

stakeholders. 

Be it further resolved that the industry representatives will draft and circulate among 

the NEPSI Stakeholders another technical working document providing further 

specificity on the interface between the alternative system principles and the 

advanced recovery fee (ARF)/hybrid, which will outline specific criteria to provide an 

equivalent level of service to the NEPSI System consistent with the base level of 

service technical working document. This document will make and clearly describe 

the assumptions on which the financing model is based. 

Be it further resolved that in order to fully recover the bulk of orphaned and historic 

NEPSI Products, the NEPSI Participants support implementation on a national basis 

of an ARF-driven system which is flexible enough to allow for an Alternative System 

that permits individual manufacturer responsibility as set forth in the draft MOU 

dated February 6, 2004, without undermining the financial viability of the ARF 

system. It is further the intent of the NEPSI System that the ARF-financed 

components of the system transition to a Partial Cost Internalization (PCI) System 

pursuant to an agreed upon time schedule and process as set forth in the draft MOU 

and technical working documents attached and referenced therein. 

Be it further resolved that through the NEPSI process, participants have developed a 

number of technical working documents including the Alternative Stewardship 

Principles, a draft MOU dated February 6, 2004, and related background documents. 

Though these documents have not been fully vetted, and in some cases not fully 

completed, they embody many of the parameters of a national system. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 91

Be it further resolved that upon reconvening, the NEPSI group shall finalize the 

following documents and take the following actions: 

- Performance measures document; 

- Memorandum of Understanding, including exhibits; 

- National uniformity document; 

- Alternative stewardship principles document; and 

Scheduling of a meeting to discuss formation of a National Coordinating Entity as 

articulated in the Interim Program technical working document. 

Industry stakeholders worked diligently on a compromise financing mechanism, but were 

unable to deliver a system back to the NEPSI stakeholders. Thus, the dialogue could not be 

reconvened in a timely fashion to negotiate a final agreement for a national system. The 

February 2004 meeting remained the last meeting of the NEPSI dialogue. 

Despite the lack of resolution on a national system, the stakeholders reached consensus on a 

number of critical issues necessary in a national system over the course of three years’ work. 

This included a scope of products, environmentally sound management procedures, market 

development opportunities, a base-level of infrastructure, and aspects of a third-party 

organization. In addition, the NEPSI process generated a tremendous amount of data about 

electronics management that continues to inform the e-waste discussion in the United States. 
Technology Administration 

92 Recycling Technology Products

APPENDIX IV 

GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES 

Below are some of the major activities undertaken by the Federal Government and industry 

to address electronics recycling. There are numerous other efforts, particularly at the local 

level by industry, state and local governments, and non-profits, which are not all described 

here. 

The EPA eCycling Pilot 

In 2000, the Philadelphia EPA (Region 3) and the environmental agencies of the MidAtlantic states (Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the 

District of Columbia (DC) joined forces with electronic manufacturers to find a sustainable 

approach to remove end-of-life computers and televisions from the municipal waste stream. 

Through the Region 3 eCycling Pilot, government and industry collaborated to demonstrate 

the feasibility of a multi-state, public/private, residential electronics collection, reuse, and 

recycling program that is based on a model of shared responsibility among government, 

industry, and consumers. 

The intent of eCycling was to collect empirical data on the cost of managing end-of-life 

electronics as well as to divert electronics from the waste stream for recycling and reuse. 

Additionally, organizers sought to learn how to harmonize regulations across state 

boundaries and to test the use of a third party organization to manage private-sector 

contributions. 

At its conclusion on December 31, 2002, the eCycling Pilot had sponsored 58 residential 

electronics collection events and 9 permanent collection programs. It collected over 2,700 

tons and diverted more than 26,000 cathode ray tubes (CRTs) from televisions and computer 

monitors from the municipal waste stream. 

The largest recyclers for the eCycling Pilot were Envirocycle, Inc. of Hallstead, 

Pennsylvania, and Elemental, Inc. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The EPA contracted 

electronics recycler was Envirocycle, Inc., while Elemental, Inc. provided recycling services 

for the Delaware drop-off program. 

For Envirocycle, average collection, transportation, and recycling costs were $0.06 per 

pound, $0.04 per pound, and $0.14 per pound respectively. The contracted rate for 

Envirocycle was $0.25 per pound and included “turn-key” electronics collection and 

recycling services, ensured domestic dismantling, and ensured the use of safe environmental 

and human health management practices. Overall pilot costs were approximately $1.1 million 

and an average of $0.20 per pound. 

According to the report, key lessons learned from the 58 one time events, 1 state 

wide/permanent collection program, and 8 county wide permanent collection programs held 

over the 14-month period were that aggressive advertising was critical to the success of all 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 93

the eCycling events and programs. The residents who attended the collection events 

expressed a willingness to pay a small end-of-life fee of $2 or $5 per item. Permanent 

collection programs were more cost effective than single day events. The eCycling Pilot was 

a catalyst in expanding electronics collection opportunities for residents and small businesses 

in the Mid–Atlantic states. One local government in Pennsylvania and one in Maryland each 

started a permanent collection program as a result of eCycling. The permanent collection 

program in Delaware demonstrated that a consistently high volume of residential and small 

business electronics is available for collection and recycling. Delaware’s monthly pickups 

exceeded 100,000 pounds each month and averaged 160,000 pounds per month. 

The major accomplishments of the Region 3 eCycling Pilot were: 

• Development of a unified end-of-life electronics across state boundaries in the 

five Mid-Atlantic states and DC. 

• Partnerships with electronics companies who helped cover some of the costs to 

operate the Pilot 

• Partnership with a third-party organization who managed the financial 

contributions from the private sector, and helped with data management and 

analysis 

• Establishment of a contracted vehicle (via the US Army Corps of Engineers) 

through which 4 states and DC could use public sector funding 

• Expansion of the electronics recycling infrastructure throughout the Mid-Atlantic 

region.215

EPA’s Plug-In To eCycling Campaign 

Launched in January 2003, the Plug-In to eCycling is one of the EPA’s Resource 

Conservation Challenge efforts. Plug-In strives to increase Americans’ opportunities to 

recycle unwanted electronics and their awareness of the need to do so. Plug-In accomplishes 

this by partnering with manufacturers, retailers of consumer electronics, and local 

governments to provide recycling opportunities for citizens. Plug-In also partners with these 

players to test new models for collecting electronics from consumers (e.g., retailer-based, instore takeback). Finally, Plug-In has crafted safe management guidelines for electronics 

recycling for use by Plug-In partners and any others who wish to ensure that their electronics 

are properly managed. Plug-In partners include: Apple, Best Buy, Brother, Cingular, Dell 

eBay, Epson, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, JVC, Lexmark, NEC Display, Office Depot, Panasonic, 

Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Staples, and Toshiba. Good Guys retailer was a 

partner until 2005 when the company was sold. 

Guidelines for Plug-In To eCycling Campaign 

EPA developed environmentally sound management (ESM) guidelines for the management 

of “end-of-life” electronics for its Plug-in Program, called “Guidelines for Materials 

 

215 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/plugin/index.htm. 
Technology Administration 

94 Recycling Technology Products

Management” (reproduced at the end of this Appendix). The Plug-In campaign and pilot 

programs provided a test for the guidelines and they were used as a framework for 

considering the acceptance of partners to the Plug-In Campaign. 

The guidelines were written to address reuse, refurbishment, and recycling/disposal, not to 

specifically address collection activities. Under these guidelines, the Plug-In partner ensures 

that these practices are utilized to the greatest possible extent for all electronics, and if 

incineration or landfilling is unavoidable, the partner must consider whether the waste has 

value for energy recovery, must manage waste safely at fully licensed facilities, and must 

comply with all federal and state requirements. If any electronic products or components are 

exported, the partner must comply with all applicable requirements of the United States as 

well as those of importing and transit countries. Additionally, any of the following materials 

are to be removed and handled separately unless the export is to be used for refurbishing or 

reuse, or the partner has ensured that these materials will be removed in OECD member 

countries: batteries, mercury and PCB containing lamps, devices, circuit boards (unless 

contained in hand-held equipment), and CRT/CRT glass. 

For materials designated for reuse or refurbishment, the Plug-In partner ensures that all items 

in the shipment meet legitimate specifications as well as the specifications of the consignee, 

all items are packaged in a manner consistent with preservation of the used equipment for 

reuse/refurbishment, and proper records are maintained. For recyclable materials, the partner 

ensures records demonstrating that downstream processing and recycling operations adhere 

to the following five guidelines: 

• Facilities are fully licensed by all appropriate governing authorities, 

• Facilities have an environmental management system in place, 

• Facilities safeguard occupational and environmental health and safety, 

• Facilities track key process parameters, compliance with safety procedures, 

effluent and emissions, and incoming/stored/outgoing materials and waste, 

• Facilities have an adequate plan for closure.216 See Appendix for a complete copy 

of the guidance. 

EPA Plug-In Program Pilots 

Partnership between Good Guys, Pacific Northwest Local Governments and EPA Region 10 

In Washington, King County, Snohomish County, Pierce County, the City of Seattle, and the 

City of Tacoma joined with Good Guys and six electronics manufacturers to hold a onemonth television recycling program at Good Guys stores in Bellevue, Tukwila, Lynnwood 

and Puyallup between July 8 and August 7, 2004. Consumers could bring one television per 

customer to a participating Good Guys store and leave it to be recycled by paying a fee: $25 

for console televisions and $10 for all other televisions. Consumers received a 10 percent 

discount on the purchase of any television by the participating manufacturers: JVC, Phillips, 

Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, and Sony. Program organizers estimated that the fee accounted for 

 

216 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/plugin/guide.htm. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 95

approximately 50 percent of the cost of the recycling. Existing local programs for television 

drop-off cost up to $50 a unit. Television brands were recorded, but not sorted and not 

returned to the manufacturers. All went to a local recycler.217 Over 4,000 televisions were 

collected (over 197,000 pounds). 

Partnership Between Staples and the Product Steward Institute in New England 

Starting in late May 2004, Staples Inc. partnered with the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) 

launched a six week pilot program to measure the success of retail-based electronics 

recycling. PSI is a national organization that seeks to reduce the health and environmental 

impacts of consumer products. The pilot’s goal is to test and measure the reverse distribution 

process as a unique strategy for transporting old computers and other business equipment 

from consumers to recyclers. The planned process used the same channels that provide the 

new products to customers to collect and transport the old electronics to the distribution 

centers. The pilot included 25 collections at retail stores in the Dayville, Connecticut, 

distribution network and 24 collections from Internet or catalog customers serviced by the 

North Reading or Sharon, Massachusetts, delivery hubs. In all, 115,029 pounds of electronics 

were collected.

In this pilot project, Staples collected and recycled old computers, peripherals, and office 

equipment from its customers. Staples provided the labor, transportation equipment, and 

storage capacity for the pilot. Participating manufacturers shared the costs of transporting 

used electronics from consolidation points to the recycler, as well as paying a share of the 

recycling costs. Local and state government agencies also assisted in designing the project, 

and promoted the collections. PSI’s role was collecting data from Staples’ retail and delivery 

operations. 

PSI released a report that analyzes the lesson learned during the program in 2005.218

EPA Nationwide Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard Pilot Program 

Office Depot, and Hewlett-Packard (HP) partnered for a nationwide pilot to recycle a limited 

number of consumer electronics, including computers, televisions under 27 inches, cell 

phones, pagers, and PDAs. Consumers could take one product per day to an Office Depot 

and drop off their product with no fee. All the products, regardless of make, were transported 

to HP recycling centers. HP covered all the recycling costs and Office Depot covered all the 

collection costs. Interestingly, two cities in Washington have curbside collection of 

electronics with no fee and other local governments have continuous drop-off centers, some 

with fees, yet consumers still brought products into the local Office Depot.219 More than 

10,500,000 pounds (over 325,000 units) were collected, which is equal to more than 441 

tractor trailer loads. The Northwest Product Stewardship Council is working with Office 

Depot to analyze the program and plans to release its findings.220

 

217 EPA press release & Lynn Williams, EPA Seattle Region 10. 218 See http://www.productstewardship.us/displayPage.php?pageid=126. 219 EPA press release & Lynn Williams, EPA Seattle Region 10. 220 See http://www.productstewardship.net. 
Technology Administration 

96 Recycling Technology Products

Partnership Between Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Best Buy, Target, 

Recycle America Alliance and Asset Recovery Corporation

In light of Minnesota’s passage of a landfill ban for cathode ray tubes (CRTs), a pilot project 

to test the potential to institutionalize episodic, retailer-based collections was initiated. From 

May to October 2004, this pilot looked for viable shared-responsibility solutions for old 

consumer electronics. It did this by testing the practicality of retail-based collection strategies 

with no fees or a minimal fee paid by the consumers at the point of collection, and also 

testing ways in which retailers and manufacturers can collaborate to create sustainable 

recycling systems. Best Buy offered one or two day collection events in the Twin Cities 

metropolitan area and in Wisconsin. 

Under the program, contributing manufacturers paid for the processing of their own branded 

products and for a portion of the cost of transportation to the recycler. The retailer paid for 

collection costs and outreach. The consumer paid an end-of-life fee to cover the remaining 

pilot costs.221 In total, 357,526 pounds were collected. 

Regional Take It Back Network- Local initiative in the Pacific Northwest 

As electronic waste has become an increasingly important issue, Snohomish County, 

Washington, has actively sought to establish an effective product stewardship type system for 

the management of electronic products. In 2002, the County established the Take it Back 

Network, a number of private businesses that have agreed to provide collection locations and 

recycling/processing services. The County has also established e-waste recycling at three of 

its transfer stations where it charges an end-of-life fee. 

Additionally, some electronic manufacturers began offering limited “take-back” programs to 

their customers nationally. Most of these programs involve mailing the products to the 

manufacturer, which will then provide or arrange recycling. In the beginning, the County 

promoted the use of these programs, however, it became unclear how practical and effective 

these programs were in providing services to citizens or accomplishing the needed collection 

and recycling of electronic waste. Furthermore, preliminary tests of existing manufacturer 

take-back programs by the county staff indicated that they were confusing, time consuming, 

and expensive. 

Consequently, in 2002, Snohomish County hired the marketing consulting firm, PRR, to test 

the current electronic take-back programs offered by computer manufacturers. A PRR 

research associate conducted “secret shopper” research with five manufacturer programs 

including IBM, HP, Dell, Gateway, and Lexmark. By employing a secret shopper technique, 

PRR was able to assess each of the five manufacturer take-back programs. This technique 

involved conducting an information search using the web, email, and toll-free numbers for 

each manufacturer to learn about their take-back programs and how to get a computer system 

recycled. PRR tested the manufacturers on the following items: 

• 1 13” monitor 

 

221 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/plugin/minnesota.htm. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 97

• 1 central processing unit (CPU), standard size tower 

• 1 Inkjet printer, small HP model 

• 1 Keyboard & Mouse 

The goal of this research was to test the convenience, information accuracy, time 

expenditure, and cost of each of these manufacturer provided programs. At the end of the 

study, PPR came to five key conclusions. 

1. IBM, HP and Dell offer take-back services that are similar in scope and cost. All 

brands of equipment are accepted. Average cost for recycling a complete 

computer system is approximately $68.00, inclusive of shipping materials, 

although Dell had a limited time 50% off recycling offer in place at the time of 

the research. The consumer orders the service via Internet, phone or email. The 

consumer must package up the computer equipment, put it out on the front porch 

and wait for a shipper to pick it up. 

2. Lexmark offers free recycling, but only for Lexmark products. The consumer 

must also bear the costs of packaging materials and shipping. This may work well 

for small printers, but in the case of this research project, a large desk Lexmark 

printer was recycled that required $40 in shipping costs and $10 worth of 

packaging. 

3. Each manufacturer take-back program requires time to search an Internet site, 

make phone calls or send emails for information. Information derived from these 

sources was not consistently reliable. It was sometimes good, sometimes fair, 

sometimes poor and sometimes simply unavailable. 

4. Gateway does not actually offer a take-back program, but refers customers to 

other available recycling options. The information provided by Gateway was 

outdated, since it initially directed the researcher to local charities that no longer 

accept electronics for recycling. However, using links on the Gateway site, the 

researcher was eventually able to recycle her computer via a Snohomish County 

“Take IT Back Network” private-sector collection site that had partnered with 

local government. 

5. The private-sector Take It Back Network collection site offered the cheapest, 

easiest, and most convenient way to recycle. It cost approximately $15 to recycle 

an entire computer system, including printer. It did not require waiting for a 

recycling package, label and instructions; sourcing packaging and boxing up the 

equipment; or waiting for a shipping company to pick up the equipment. All that 

was required was a drive to the collection site. 

The Snohomish County test of manufacturer take back programs concluded that these 

programs were high cost, and lack the element of relative convenience and required 

substantial time commitment to recycle a computer. The report argued that manufacturer 
Technology Administration 

98 Recycling Technology Products

programs needed to improve significantly in terms of cost and ease of use if mail-back 

services are expected to serve any meaningful role in the collection of obsolete products. 

The report recommends that improvements to existing take back programs include significant 

cost reduction, easy to find and use recycling information and websites; better training for 

customer service representatives, effective email query management, and clear information 

on options and costs. Furthermore, in order to develop effective manufacturer take-back 

programs, the report recommends that manufacturers may need to finance “brick and mortar” 

recycling drop of locations by partnering with local retailers, businesses, charities and 

government services. The advantage, PRR argues, would be decreased cost to the consumer 

and manufacturer and increased convenience, yielding higher recycling rates.222

Results of the test and recommendations were provided to these manufacturers. By the time 

the report was officially released, several of the programs had undergone significant changes 

and improvements. 

Best Buy Pilot 

In August 2004, six Best Buy stores in the Indianapolis area served as recycling drop-off 

points for many consumer electronic items. Best Buy collected: computers, monitors, 

printers, fax machines, TV’s (up to 27”), stereos, VCRs, DVD players, and camcorders. The 

goal of the program was to provide consumers with a convenient and safe way to recycle 

their household electronics.223

WasteCap, EIA, Goodwill, and Retailers Pilot 

In December 2003, EIA, WasteCap, Goodwill Industries and the Retailers Association of 

Massachusetts kicked-off a voluntary electronics recycling pilot program, “Recycle 

Electronics for Charity,” to encourage consumers in the Bay State to recycle their used 

computers and televisions and donate them to Goodwill Industries.224 That charitable 

organization in turn distributed the donated goods to those in need or recycled them. Under 

the pilot program, Goodwill will work closely with WasteCap, a non-profit, public/private 

partnership designed to develop and implement cost-effective recycling, reuse, and waste 

reduction programs for businesses. Goodwill Industries and WasteCap will oversee the 

collection, recycling, and distribution of the donated electronics at two Goodwill Industries 

pilot program sites in Massachusetts. EIA member companies and partnering organizations 

will contribute to the funding and implementation of the program, which also has support 

from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The pilot is supported and 

funded by Apple, Canon USA, Hewlett Packard, IBM, JVC, Lexmark, Panasonic, Philips, 

Sharp, Sony, and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. 

 

222 PRR, Test of Manufacturer Mail-Back Programs Report, January 3, 2003. 223 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/plugin/pilots.htm. 224 www.eiae.org/whatsnew/news.cfm?ID=96 (February 2004). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 99

EIA Consumer Education Initiative Website 

The Consumer Education Initiative (CEI) is a program developed by the Environmental 

Issues Council of the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) to inform consumers about 

recycling and reuse opportunities for used electronics. The website www.eiae.org has links to 

over 2,000 recycling opportunities nationwide that consumer can access by clicking on a map 

of the United States. It also has links to over 40 nationwide company specific initiatives.

WasteWise 

EPA’s WasteWise, is a voluntary program that partners with over 1,100 businesses, 

governments, and organizations to help partners, among other things, divert outdated 

computers bound for the landfill. WasteWise provides participants with free technical 

assistance to get their waste reduction programs underway.225

eBay’s Rethink Initiative 

Launched in January, 2005, Rethink is a collaboration between Ebay and it’s primary alley 

Intel Corporation as well as a tool to coordinate efforts by industry leaders Apple, Gateway, 

HP, IBM and Ingram Micro with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the non-profit 

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, UPS and the U.S. Postal Service, among other participants. 

The centerpiece of the program is a Web site (www.ebay.com/rethink) that helps consumers 

and businesses learn about the different product disposition alternatives, such as recycling 

and refurbishing, and makes it easy to put this knowledge into action by linking consumers to 

various reuse and recycling sources. This includes comprehensive information on the options 

available to consumers and small businesses to reuse or responsibly recycle computers, as 

well as easy access to a full range of responsible product disposition options - including 

services provided by Rethink Initiative participants -- and a variety of eBay-related solutions 

including assisted selling on eBay with convenient local drop-off options, trade-in programs, 

charitable donation options, or recycling programs in their local area.

The Recycling Electronics and Asset Disposition (READ) 

The EPA’s Office of Environmental Information’s READ (The Recycling Electronic and 

Asset Disposition) contract is to provide the government sector with a procurement tool to 

properly manage electronic inventories and to recycle and properly dispose of excess or 

obsolete electronic personal property in an environmentally responsible manner. 

The objective of the READ contract is to offer clients a variety of methods for the proper 

disposal of electronic assets, including: refurbishment and redeployment within the requiring 

agency; reconfiguration and re-marketing of electronic material for either donation to federal 

programs, or resale within other markets; reclamation of the assets by de-manufacturing; 

tracking and reporting on the final destination of major electronic items; and recycling 

 

225 See http://www.epa.gov/epr/products/efed.html. 
Technology Administration 

100 Recycling Technology Products

electronic components that have been removed by the de-manufacture process. According to 

the EPA, the most important aspect of the services provided is contractor assurance that 

sensitive information stored in the electronics is properly sanitized and that an audit trail is 

created to track and report on the equipment’s final destination. 

One of the goals of the award contracts for recycling and refurbishing electronics equipment 

is to set the national standard for properly recycling and disposing of aging electronic 

equipment. READ is attempting to establish a process that will continually inventory excess 

equipment to determine which electronic items can be refurbished and used in other parts of 

the agency, which items can be donated to other agencies, and which items need to be 

recycled through the de-manufacture and reclamation process. 

In summary, READ performs these services: 

• Recycling obsolete equipment 

• Logistical assistance for equipment pick up or equipment redeployment 

• Reclamation of reusable electronic items 

• Data security – safe disposal of sensitive or classified information 

• Reporting functions – real time online audit trail of electronic component’s final 

destination 

• Revenue sharing for refurbished items that are resold.226

Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) 

EPEAT is a multi-stakeholder process to design and implement a tool for evaluating the 

environmental performance of certain electronic products throughout their life cycle. The 

process was initiated to meet the growing demand by large institutional purchasers to buy 

greener products. EPEAT provides a clear and consistent set of performance criteria for the 

design of products, and provides an opportunity for manufacturers to secure market 

recognition for efforts to reduce the environmental impact of its products. It is expected to 

gain wide acceptance in IT (information technology) purchasing by federal and state 

government. The EPEAT tool is the product of a consensus process by a team of expert 

stakeholders (manufacturers, recyclers, purchasers, NGO’s and Governments). In April 2006, 

the EPEAT criteria were finalized into the IEEE 1680 Standard for the Environmental 

Assessment of Personal Computer Products.227

The basic characteristics of the EPEAT tool as developed to date are: 

Scope of Products: The EPEAT rating system initially will address computers – desktops and 

laptops – and monitors. This scope may be expanded in the future. 

 

226 See http://www.epa.gov/oamhpod1/admin_placement/0300115/fedbiz.html. 227 See www.epeat.net. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 101

Environmental Rating System: The rating system will evaluate products and grade three 

levels of performance – Bronze, Silver and Gold. Rating within the levels will be achieved 

by meeting a combination of baseline mandatory criteria and obtaining additional points by 

meeting specific additional criteria that rate environmental attributes of the products. 

Environmental Criteria: The EPEAT rating system has eight categories of product 

performance: 

1. Environmentally Sensitive Materials 

2. Materials Selection 

3. Design for End of Life 

4. Life Cycle Extension 

5. Energy Conservation 

6. End of Life Management 

7. Corporate Performance 

8. Packaging 

Among these categories there are 23 mandatory criteria to qualify for base-level EPEAT 

certification, and 28 optional points to earn higher levels. To qualify for acceptance as an 

EPEAT product, it must conform to all the required criteria. Manufacturers may pick and 

choose among the optional criteria to boost their EPEAT baseline “score” to achieve a 

higher-ranking level. For example, a bronze score meets all the mandatory criteria, while a 

gold score meets all mandatory plus 21 optional criteria. Specific criteria are drawn heavily 

from existing US and international criteria such as Energy Star, RoHS, IT-Eco Declaration, 

and ECMA. The criteria will be reviewed and updated periodically by the IEEE 1680 

Workgroup. 

EPA had provided seed funding to the Green Electronics Council to maintain a registry of 

products meeting IEEE 1680, manage verification of vendor claims, and market EPEAT to 

purchasers nationally. A list of EPEAT registered products is expected to be available in the 

Summer of 2006. To date, EPEAT has been integrated into IT contracts totaling over $21 

billion dollars.228

The Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) 

The FEC is a voluntary partnership program whose goal is to encourage federal agencies and 

facilities to purchase greener electronic products, reduce impacts of electronic products 

during use, and manage obsolete electronics in an environmentally safe way. Since the 

Federal Government purchases more than $63 billion worth of information technology 

products and services annually, it seeks to provide leadership in environmentally sound and 

cost effective life-cycle management of electronic assets. The Executive Office of the 

President, and Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Environmental 

 

228 EPA. 
Technology Administration 

102 Recycling Technology Products

Protection Agency, and General Services Administration have signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to develop and promote common strategies for using environmentally 

sustainable technologies and practices to improve the quality, performance, and 

environmental management of Federal electronic assets throughout their life cycle. They will 

achieve these goals through their participation in a national workgroup and through the 

Federal Electronics Challenge Program. 

The combined purchasing power of the MOU signatory agencies and departments represents 

approximately $54 billion, or 86 percent of the total annual IT budget for the Federal 

government. Through the use of their purchasing power, the federal government is working 

to shift the marketplace towards more environmentally sound electronic products and 

services. 

The Green Suppliers Network 

The Green Suppliers Network (GSN) is a collaborative venture between industry, the EPA, 

and the “360vu,” which is the national account brand of the National Institute for Standards 

in Technology’s (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).229 In the Green 

Suppliers Network, these organizations work with all levels of the manufacturing supply 

chain to achieve environmental and economic benefits. 

In order to improve performance, minimize waste generation and remove institutional 

roadblocks, the GSN includes a number of key features. 1) GSN uses local 360vu MEP 

centers to perform one-on-one technical reviews at the supplier’s manufacturing facility. 2) 

the GSN review team will focus on incorporating energy and materials efficiency and 

process optimization into the supply chain, with the final goal of producing a process and 

value stream maps of a selected process. 3) GSN partners with leading companies to outreach 

throughout all tiers of the supply chain. 4) GSN uses metrics to quantify through 360vu 

centers economic and environmental benefits. 5) GSN encourages suppliers to identify 

regulatory obstacles, and provides a forum for identifying options for change. The goal is to 

help suppliers continuously improve their products and processes, increase energy efficiency, 

identify cost saving opportunities, and optimize resources and technologies and eliminate 

waste.230

Design for the Environment (DfE) Program 

EPA is undertaking, in cooperation with the electronics industry, the DfE Computer Display 

project to evaluate the environmental impacts, performance and cost of cathode ray tubes 

(CRTs) and active-matrix liquid crystal display (LCD) technologies used for desktop 

computer monitors. The approach combines environmental life-cycle assessment and risk 

assessment techniques and is intended to provide the electronics industry with information on 

 

229 MEP is a non-regulatory Federal agency within the US Commerce Department’s Technology Administration 

whose mission is to develop and promote measurement, standards, and technology to enhance productivity and 

facilitate trade. 

230 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/greensuppliers/program.htm. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 103

environmentally preferable technologies, materials, and processes and on environmental 

challenges that could be addressed in the future. The DfE program is also working with the 

printed wiring board industry and others to look for ways to reduce water, energy and toxic 

chemicals use in the manufacture of printed wiring boards.231

The U.S. Department of Defense 

The U.S. Department of Defense, awarded a contract in 1998 for electronic equipment 

demanufacturing. The contract is designed to assure compliant disposal of all hazardous 

components contained in electronic equipment and to maximize the return to DOD on the 

resulting valuable metals and other recyclable materials.232

The U.S. Department of Energy 

The U.S. Department of Energy has established a partnership for e-recycling with several 

recycling centers. Through them DOE funded grants to research better methods for recycling 

glass and plastics and established an e-recycling pilot project seeking to avoid costly disposal 

and refurbish the electronics for reuse of basic components. Over 1,190 metric tons of 

materials have been recycled by this program resulting in cost avoidance to the DOE of $1.3 

million to date.233

EPA Guidelines for Materials Management 

(Developed for Plug-In to eCycling Pilots, EPA, May 2004, EPA530-K-004, 

www.epa.gov/osw) 

Purpose 

As part of an effort by EPA to develop national guidance for the management of “end-oflife” electronics, the Agency has drafted the following guidelines for use in the Plug-In To 

eCycling Campaign. The Campaign and its pilots will be used by the Agency to “test” these 

guidelines and allow the Agency to have real world information about what practices will 

most effectively protect human health and the environment, while at the same time enabling 

practicable programs for management of end-of-life electronics. 

These guidelines are intended to be used as a framework for considering the acceptance of 

partners to the Plug-In Campaign. The Agency developed these guidelines based on what we 

believe, on a general basis, to be the most important elements for protection of human health 

and the environment in managing end-of-life electronics. However, the Agency is open to the 

possibility that not all aspects of these guidelines are critical in all cases of end-of-life 

management. That is, the Agency recognizes that, on a facility-specific basis, there may be 

practices that do not conform with every element of these guidelines, yet these practices may 

also ensure the protection of human health and the environment. 

 

231 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/projects/computer/index.htm. 232 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/epr/products/efed.html. 233 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/epr/products/efed.html. 
Technology Administration 

104 Recycling Technology Products

Vital to the success of the Campaign, as well as any program for improved management of 

end-of- life electronics, is the availability of adequate markets for reuse and recycling. Thus, 

these guidelines are not intended to be a barrier to delivering reusable equipment or industrial 

feedstock materials to legitimate markets and environmentally sound facilities, wherever they 

exist. 

Applicability of Guidelines 

These guidelines are applicable to all Plug-In partners who, through contracts or other 

arrangements, utilize reuse, refurbishment, recycling, or disposal services. Plug-In Partners 

take appropriate due diligence measures to ensure that downstream facilities and operations 

use practices that are consistent with these guidelines. The guidelines are applicable to all 

activities undertaken by a Plug-In partner, not just those that are undertaken as part of a PlugIn To eCycling pilot. 

The guidelines are not written to directly address collection activities. Rather, the guidelines 

address activities that ensue following collection: reuse, refurbishment, recycling, and 

disposal, as well as the responsibilities of the Plug-In partner to ensure that such activities are 

conducted consistent with these guidelines. 

Companies or other entities that perform recycling or related processing activities (other than 

collection) are not eligible to become Plug-In partners at this time. In order for the Agency 

to form Plug-In partnerships directly with processors and recyclers, the Agency would 

specifically request certain data and other information from these entities and/or request that 

such information be kept at the facility that would document the consistency of their 

operations with these guidelines. In order to minimize the burden on the public for 

information gathering pursuant to federal activities, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

requires that the Agency obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

for such information gathering activities. Unfortunately, development of such an information 

gathering request by EPA, as well as the OMB approval process, would require 6 months to a 

year to complete. Thus, the Agency is not now in a position to request, receive, and review 

information from processors and recyclers regarding the consistency of their operations with 

these guidelines. As an alternative, it is the intent of the Agency to work towards the 

establishment of a third-party organization to function as an entity for review and recognition 

of processors and recyclers of end-of-life electronics. The Agency also will not accept as 

Plug-In partners entities that are primarily engaged in the landfill or incineration of end-oflife electronics, as these disposal operations are not the primary focus of the Plug-In To 

eCycling program.

Due Diligence 

The guidelines call for due diligence efforts on the part of Plug-In partners regarding the 

handling and disposition of end-of-life electronics. However, the guidelines do not 

incorporate the same level of due diligence under all circumstances. Rather, the level of due 

diligence recommended is commensurate with the risk of the activities involved, as well as 

being aimed at fulfillment of certain waste and material management goals under Plug-In. 

For example, the guidelines call for due diligence to provide assurance that incineration and 

landfill of any form of e-waste is minimized and, if utilized, is safe; whereas, the due 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 105

diligence steps for reuse, refurbishment, and recycling focus on only those used electronics 

that contain or consist of materials that, if mismanaged, are most likely to present hazards to 

human health or the environment. Thus, reuse is the most favored management option, 

followed by recycling and, least desirable, landfilling or incineration. 

Guidelines 1-4 below pertain to all end-of-life electronics for which Plug-In partners have 

responsibility. Among other things, guidelines 1-4 call for due diligence regarding any 

electronic products or components that are sent to incineration or land disposal. However, 

guideline 5, regarding reuse and refurbishment, and guideline 6, regarding recycling, only 

pertain to certain “designated materials,” as defined in the relevant footnote. Designated 

materials are those that are of concern because they contain or consist of materials that, when 

mismanaged, may present hazards to human health or the environment. 

Thus, no guidelines beyond those of 1-4 apply to the reuse, refurbishment or recycling of 

end-of-life electronics that, either in processed or unprocessed form, do not contain or consist 

of designated materials. The Agency encourages the processing (including sorting) of used 

electronics to enhance the value of output streams, often resulting in the generation of 

multiple commodity streams that do not contain or consist of designated materials. 

Because equipment for reuse often contains designated materials, guideline 5 will be 

applicable to many reuse markets. However, to maximize reuse, the elements of guideline 5 

are relatively simple--the Plug-In partner ensures that equipment meets legitimate reuse 

specifications, is packaged to protect its value, and that proper business records are kept of 

the transaction. The only other guideline having relevance to reuse is guideline 4(a)—the 

Plug-in partner ensures that export of reusable equipment is in conformance with the laws of 

importing and transit countries. Guidelines 1-5 are applicable to equipment for 

refurbishment. 

GUIDELINES for MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

All electronics 

1. The Plug-In partner234 ensures that reuse, refurbishment, and recycling techniques 

are used to the full extent practicable, i.e., recognizing technical and economic 

feasibility, in an effort to minimize incineration and land disposal of electronic 

equipment and components. The Plug-In partner ensures that proper business 

records are kept demonstrating that incineration and land disposal are minimized. 

2. Where incineration or land disposal is unavoidable, the Plug-In partner ensures 

that: 

a. Consideration is first given to whether the waste has value for energy 

recovery. For certain wastes, such as plastics, incineration with energy 

 

234 “Plug-In partner” means a manufacturer, retailer, government agency, non-profit, or other entity who (1) is 

not a recycler nor performs recycling activities (other than collection), (2) through contracts or other 

arrangements, utilizes reuse, refurbishment, recycling or disposal services, and (3) has a Plug-In To eCycling 

partnership agreement with EPA. 
Technology Administration 

106 Recycling Technology Products

recovery is preferable over incineration without energy recovery or landfill. 

For wastes that have value for energy recovery, but for which energy recovery 

is technically or economically infeasible, the Plug-In partner ensures that a 

reasonable case of infeasibility has been made. 

b. The wastes (including those generated at refurbishment and recycling 

operations, smelters, etc.) are managed safely at facilities that are fully 

licensed for treatment and disposal purposes by all appropriate governing 

authorities. The Plug-In partner ensures that there is written evidence 

substantiating this. 

c. Landfills and incinerators have an environmental management system in 

place, as is described in guideline 6(b) below for certain recycling facilities. 

3. The Plug-In partner ensures that all applicable federal and state requirements 

pertaining to the transport, processing, and management of electronic products 

and components are complied with. 

4. In the case of export of any electronic products and components, the Plug-In 

partner ensures that: 

a. Any applicable requirements of the U.S., as well as applicable requirements of 

importing and transit countries, are complied with, and proper business 

records are kept documenting such compliance. 

b. Prior to export, the materials listed below are removed and handled separately, 

unless: 

i. The export is for purposes of reuse or refurbishment, or 

ii. The Plug-In partner has documented and regularly monitored controls in 

place to assure that the materials will be removed in member countries of 

the OECD: 

(1) Batteries. 

(2) Mercury- and PCB-containing lamps and devices. 

(3) Circuit boards, unless they are contained in hand-held electronic 

equipment, such as cellular phones, PDAs, etc. (Note: Under U.S. 

rules, minimal quantities of mercury and batteries that are 

protectively packaged to minimize dispersion of metal constituents 

do not need to be removed from whole circuit boards). 

(4) CRTs and CRT glass, both of which are adequately processed for use 

as an industrial feedstock material prior to export. 

Note: The U.S. is not currently a party to the Basel Convention, although the U.S. is a 

member of the OECD. International trade in hazardous wastes is governed by existing 

agreements under both OECD and Basel, as well as by the laws of exporting, importing and 

transit countries. Trade in end-of-life electronics that are considered hazardous wastes 

intended for recovery between the U.S. and any OECD country are governed by the OECD 

control system, as implemented through the laws and regulations of the member countries. 

Because the U.S. is not a party to the Basel Convention, federal law does not yet include 

obligations for U.S. exporters of end-of-life electronics that are considered hazardous wastes 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 107

under the Basel Convention. However, U.S. exporters should be cognizant that Basel 

Convention requirements could affect them, as implemented by the laws of importing and 

transit countries. In addition, the importing and transit countries may have other laws and 

regulations that could affect U.S. exporters and their transactions. Until such time as the 

U.S. becomes a party to the Basel Convention, no country that is a party to Basel but not a 

member of OECD can legally accept hazardous waste exported from the U.S. absent a 

bilateral agreement between the governments under Article 11 of the Basel Convention. At 

this time, the U.S. has no bilateral agreements with any countries outside of the OECD that 

provide for the export of hazardous waste. Current U.S. rules regarding the export of 

hazardous wastes can be found at 40 CFR Part 262, Subparts E and H. 

“Designated materials” for reuse or refurbishment 

5. This guideline applies to designated materials235 that are directed to reuse or 

refurbishment.236 However, it is only intended to apply to those shipments of 

designated materials (such as the following intact equipment: monitors, 

televisions, CRT bulbs, CPUs, laptops, printers and cell phones) that have been 

prescreened to meet legitimate reuse or refurbishment specifications. Unscreened 

shipments for evaluation of reuse/refurbishment potential and shipments 

containing some reusable (or refurbishable) and some non-reusable (or nonrefurbishable) equipment are considered shipments for recycling and are 

addressed in guideline 6. In the case of refurbishment, guidelines 1-4 and 6 apply 

to any components that are subsequently determined to be unusable. For 

designated materials that are directed to reuse or refurbishment, the Plug-In 

partner ensures that: 

a. All items in the shipment meet legitimate reuse or refurbishment 

specifications. 

b. All items in the shipment meet the specifications of the consignee. 

c. All items in the shipment are packaged in a manner that is consistent with 

preservation of the used equipment for reuse or refurbishment. That is, the 

packaging protects the used equipment in storage and transport, such that the 

value of the used equipment for reuse or refurbishment is not diminished. 

 

235 “Designated materials” means any electronic products and components containing or consisting of circuit 

boards, shredded circuit boards, CRTs, batteries, and mercury- and PCB-containing lamps and devices. 

However, this definition does not include circuit boards that have been processed to the point where they no 

longer are readily identifiable as circuit boards or shredded circuit boards (such as after burning/melting), as 

well as CRT glass that has been adequately processed for use as an industrial feedstock material. In these cases, 

the economic value of the material has been enhanced significantly through processing; thus, commodities of 

value have been created and concern for the subsequent environmental mismanagement of this material is 

greatly decreased. 

236 “Refurbishment” means the repair, reconditioning or upgrading of an end-of-life product or component for 

the purpose of equipment reuse. Refurbishment of end-of-life electronics includes replacement of components 

or parts that are part of a larger piece of electronic equipment, aesthetic improvements, such as polishing and 

removal of scratches, and upgrading of the equipment by installation of new operating systems, memory, or 

software. 
Technology Administration 

108 Recycling Technology Products

d. Proper business records are kept that document the transfer of the used 

equipment to the consignee for reuse or refurbishment purposes, including: 

i. Name and address of consignee. 

ii. Description of shipment content and conformance with consignee product 

specifications. 

iii. Product specifications of consignee. 

iv. If for-profit transaction, amount paid for the consigned material. 

“Designated materials” for recycling 

6. The Plug-In partner ensures that all designated materials that are directed to 

recycling237 are processed by facilities that meet the guidelines herein. The PlugIn partner ensures that proper business records are kept that demonstrate that all 

downstream processing and recycling operations, including smelters, that receive 

designated materials, use practices that are consistent with these guidelines. For 

any processing and recycling facilities that receive designated materials, the PlugIn partner ensures that: 

a. Facilities are fully licensed by all appropriate governing authorities. The 

degree of licensing necessary will vary depending upon the particular 

jurisdiction, as well as the size and nature of the facility. In some cases, 

extensive environmental permitting may be required by the governmental 

authorities, whereas in other cases perhaps only a business license is needed. 

b. Facilities have an environmental management system (EMS) in place. EPA 

recognizes that flexibility for small businesses is necessary and that, in some 

cases, a fully developed and certified EMS may be unnecessary. In lieu of a 

fully a facility has a written plan describing the facility’s risk management 

objectives for environmental performance and compliance and its plans for 

attaining these objectives based on a “plan-do-check-act” continual 

improvement model. Regular re-evaluation of environment, health and safety 

(EH&S) objectives and monitoring of progress toward achievement of these 

objectives is conducted and documented at all facilities. EPA also recognizes 

that a fully developed EMS may not yet be in place for many facilities. In any 

case, a written plan describing risk management objectives and plans for 

attainment based on a “plan-do-check-act” model is in place. 

c. Facilities take sufficient measures to safeguard occupational and 

environmental health and safety. Such measures may be indicated by local, 

state, national and international regulations, agreements, principles and 

standards, as well as by industry standards and guidelines. Except as noted 

below, such measures for all facilities include: 

i. EH&S training of personnel. 

 

237 “Recycling” facilities include any non-disposal facilities that receive designated materials under conditions 

that do not conform with guideline 5 above for legitimate reuse or refurbishment. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 109

ii. An up-to-date, written hazardous materials identification and 

management plan that specifically addresses at least the following: lead, 

mercury, beryllium, cadmium, batteries, toner, phosphor compounds, 

PCBs, and brominated flame retardants and other halogenated materials, 

with particular focus on possible generation of by-product dioxins and 

furans. 

iii. Where materials are shredded or heated, appropriate measures to protect 

workers, the general public and the environment from hazardous dusts 

and emissions. Such measures include adaptations in equipment design or 

operational practices, air flow controls, personal protective devices for 

workers, pollution control equipment or a combination of these measures. 

iv. An up-to-date, written plan for reporting and responding to exceptional 

pollutant releases, including emergencies such as accidents, spills, fires, 

and explosions. 

v. Liability insurance for pollutant releases, accidents and other 

emergencies. 

vi. Completion of an EH&S audit, preferably by a recognized independent 

auditor, on an annual basis. However, for small businesses, greater 

flexibility may be needed, and an audit every three years may be 

appropriate. 

d. Facilities have a regularly-implemented and documented monitoring and 

recordkeeping program that tracks key process parameters, compliance with 

relevant safety procedures, effluents and emissions, and incoming, stored and 

outgoing materials and wastes. 

e. Facilities have an adequate plan for closure. The need for closure plans and 

financial guarantees is determined by applicable laws and regulations, taking 

into consideration the level of risk. Closure plans should be updated 

periodically, and financial guarantees should ensure that the necessary 

measures are undertaken upon definite cessation of activities to prevent any 

environmental damage and return the site of operation to a satisfactory state, 

as required by the applicable laws and regulations developed and certified 

EMS (e.g., using ISO, EMAS or industry standards, such as those of the 

IAER), 
Technology Administration 

110 Recycling Technology Products

APPENDIX V 

STATE LEGISLATION AND ACTIVITIES 

The states legislatures have been very active in proposing and considering legislation on 

electronics recycling and bans on certain materials over the last few years. Overall, there 

were approximately 47 substantive measures on electronics recycling introduced in state 

legislatures in 2003: 10 called for producer responsibility, 10 included consumer fees, nine 

offered government solutions, and two invoked shared responsibility. Of these measures, five 

included disposal bans and four established advisory committees. In 2004, approximately 14 

measures were introduced, of which seven called for producer responsibility, three included 

user fees, three established advisory committees, one invoked shared responsibility, and 

several included disposal bans. Many bills focused on CRT and mercury disposal.238 In 2005 

there were a total of 30 electronic recycling bills proposed in 23 states, with two more at the 

federal level.239

There are currently five states that ban CRTs from landfills. Massachusetts was the first to 

ban residential electronic waste in landfills in 1999. California, Maine, Minnesota, and New 

Hampshire have also banned disposing of CRT’s in landfills. 

Four states—California, Maine, Maryland, and Washington—have passed statewide 

electronics recycling legislation. California’s is based on an advanced recycling fee paid by 

the consumer at the point of sale. Maine’s and Washington’s are based on producer 

responsibility. Maryland’s assesses a fee on computer manufacturers to fund county 

collection programs. The other states with CRT bans are expected to pass comprehensive 

legislation in the near future. The following is a description of legislation, enacted and 

proposed, in some of the states that are the most active in electronics recycling. This survey 

of existing and proposed legislation is not a comprehensive list; instead it highlights the 

diversity of requirements to which producers, retailers, and other are or may be subject. State 

legislation moves quickly and the status of legislation may have changed by the time of this 

report’s publication. 

Enacted Legislation and State Programs 

Arkansas: Act 970 (H.B. 2115) 

This act, covering only state agency electronic waste, was signed by the Governor on March 

21, 2005. It states that starting January 2008, all covered substances are banned from being 

disposed of in landfills. Agencies must seek other ways to dispose of these products through 

donation or recycling. Covered items include: computer monitors, TVs, audio and stereo 

equipment, monitors, computers, VCRs, keyboards, printers, telephones, and fax machines. 

 

238 Rifer, Wayne, E-Waste: The New Waste Crisis – Legislative and Regulatory Drivers, Rifer Environmental,

July 21, 2004. 

239 E-scrap News, October 2005. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 111

California: Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 

The California Electronic Waste Recycling Act (SB20), passed in September 2003, requires 

collection of an advanced recovery fee (ARF) at the point of sale to help offset the costs 

associated with electronics recycling. It was amended by SB50, which delayed 

implementation. The law took effect on January 1st, 2005 by which date retailers were 

supposed to begin collection of an ARF on sales of covered electronic devices and were 

prohibited from selling devices without the label of the manufacturer clearly displayed. The 

law and regulations can be viewed at California’s State Government website.240 Commodities 

subject to an ARF are video display devices such as televisions, computer monitors, and 

laptop computers that contain CRTs and liquid crystal display monitors. (Fees on LCD and 

plasma television screens were added July 1, 2005.) The fee ranges from $6.00-$10.00 

depending on screen size: 

• Six dollars ($6) for each covered electronic device with a screen size of less than 

15 inches measured diagonally; 

• Eight dollars ($8) for each covered electronic device with a screen size greater 

than or equal to 15 inches but less that 35 inches measured diagonally; and 

• Ten dollars ($10) for each covered electronic device with a screen size greater 

than or equal to 35 inches measured diagonally. 

California retailers are allowed to deduct a three percent administration fee on a quarterly 

basis from those funds collected from consumers. The fees also apply to mail order and 

Internet purchases. Many manufacturers and retailers doubted whether the state would be 

able to collect an ARF on Internet sales, not to mention discourage fraud in the system.241

CIWMB, however, believes the majority of Internet sales are capturing the ARF. It can be 

noted that the largest sellers have a nexus in California. 

The law requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the 

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), along with other stakeholders, to 

implement the various aspects of the law. The ARF payment system is administered by the 

Electronic Waste Recycling Fee Section of the California Board of Equalization (BOE). 

Retailers remit the fees to the BOE, minus their three percent. 

Entities that wish to become collection or recycling entities may fill out an application 

describing their capabilities to become an approved collector and/or recycler within the ARF 

payment system. The recycler receives 48 cents per pound from the state of which 20 cents is 

reserved for the collector. 

California collected 64 million pounds of covered waste and $73 million of ARF revenue in 

2005. The State was prepared to extend a $30 million loan from other programs to the 

CIWMB to jump-start the electronics recycling program. The loan, however, was not 

necessary; collection of the ARF began in January 2005 with retailers’ remittances reaching 

the BOE in April in time for CIWMB to pay claims of collectors and recyclers, which were 

 

240 California Integrated Waste Management Board, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Electronics/Act2003 and 

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Electronics/RegIssues (February 8, 2005). 241 Michele Raymond, Status of U.S. Electronics Waste Legislation, Raymond Communications, May 12, 2004. 
Technology Administration 

112 Recycling Technology Products

filed starting in mid-March. BOE hired 55 additional staff at an estimated annual cost of over 

$5 million for revenue collection management. CIWMB estimates total overhead by the state 

at approximately 18 percent presently, which includes a five percent reserve and one percent 

for advertisements. On top of that is the three percent kept by the retailers. 

Recyclers receive $0.48 per pound from the state of which $0.20 is reserved for the collector. 

After the first year, collectors that handle over 100,000 pounds annually have reported costs 

of around $0.19/lb. Most of the waste, 51 million out of the 64 million pounds, is collected 

by large scale recyclers handling over one million pounds annually. These recyclers reported 

costs of approximately $0.27/lb. The average monitor is about 33-35 pounds, so the average 

per unit cost to recyclers/collectors is $16.00. The average ARF, however, is $8.00.242

Recyclers must disassemble the electronic products in California, but there is no requirement 

on where the recyclers can then ship the parts. 

In December 2005, revisions to the regulations were made to adjust for problems 

encountered, such as those electronics illegally dumped or left at collection centers without 

proof they originated in California. According to CIWMB, these account for approximately 

10 percent of products, with Goodwill reporting an even higher percentage. December 31, 

2007, is the target date by which the State hopes to eliminate electronic waste stockpiles and 

legacy devices. 

There is no manufacturer responsibility in the California legislation to pay for transportation 

and recycling, but there are substantial reporting requirements. Manufacturers are required to 

affix labels to their products that clearly identify the manufacturer; submit reports to CIWMB 

detailing the number of covered devices sold in the state and on the amount of hazardous and 

recycled materials in their products; on any DfE efforts they have undertaken or are planning 

in the future; and make electronic waste management information available to consumers. 

California’s law copies the EU’s RoHS Directive in banning certain materials from 

electronics. It uses the same deadlines as RoHS as well. As of January 1, 2007, DTSC 

regulations forbidding sale of devices containing materials prohibited by EU Directive 

2002/95/EC may become effective. As has been previously noted, many of the major 

electronics manufacturers are already redesigning products for the European market to meet 

the RoHS requirements. Some of the leading manufacturers of electronics products believe 

that the legislation in California will help to speed up compliance to EU material restrictions 

from those companies who have been slow to make the necessary changes. It will also impact 

smaller manufacturers who might have planned to sell separate EU and U.S. products 

containing the restricted materials or who do not sell into the EU market.243

Illinois: HB 1149 

This law, passed both the state house and senate and signed by the Governor in 2005, 

establishes the Computer Equipment Disposal and Recycling Commission. The commission 

will investigate problems related to disposal and recycling of computer equipment, advise 

state agencies as to legislative actions, and make recommendations on pilot programs, and 

 

242 Interview with Matt McCarron, California Integrated Waste Management Board, June 15, 2006. 243 Inform, Impact of the RoHS Directive on Electronic Products Sold in the United States, September 2003, p. 

4. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 113

report to the Governor, General Assembly and the Director of the EPA on or before May 31, 

2006. 

Louisiana: S.C.R.6 

This bill, signed by the Governor in June 2005, commissions a study into effective means for 

recycling e-waste and how these activities should be funded, to be presented before the 

beginning of the 2006 legislature. 

Maine: LD 743 and LD 1892 

In May 2003, the Maine Legislature passed “An Act to Protect Public Health and the 

Environment Through the Collection and Recycling of Electronic Waste” (LD 743), which 

required each producer of electronic equipment sold in Maine to submit to the Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) for approval a plan for producer-financed collection, 

recovery and recycling of electronic waste. The law bans landfilling and incineration of 

computer monitors, televisions, and CPU’s effective July 2006, as well as directs DEP to 

develop a plan for the collection and disposal of these products. 

LD 1892, known as the “Act to Protect Public Health and the Environment by Providing for 

a System of Shared Responsibility for the Safe Collection and Recycling of Electronic 

Waste” was signed April 22, 2004. Manufacturers and retailers will be prohibited from 

selling covered devices produced by manufacturers who are not in compliance after January 

2006. By January 2005, the manufacturer of a covered device that is for sale in Maine is 

required to have a visible permanently affixed label that clearly identifies the manufacturer. 

This Act is based on producer responsibility, but puts significant requirements on retailers as 

well. The law and regulations can be viewed on Maine’s State Planning Office website.244

Municipalities must provide for delivery of household televisions and computer monitors to 

consolidation facilities and are to locally, individually, or regionally determine how to 

accomplish this task. Options include on-going or one-day collections, curbside collections, 

or contracting with consolidation facilities for homeowners to deliver their own computer 

monitors and televisions directly to the consolidator. 

Consolidation facilities must provide the state with an accounting of products by March 1 of 

each year and can either do the count internally or contract with a recycler to do the count. 

The invoices are billed to the manufacturers for handling, transportation to recycling, and 

recycling costs for their own units plus a pro rated share of orphans. Consolidators are 

required to ship to recyclers that meet environmentally sound management guidelines 

published by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) while recyclers and 

dismantlers are to provide consolidators with proof that they meet ESM guidelines. 

Effective January 2006, computer monitor and television manufacturers are individually 

responsible for paying consolidators the cost of handling, transportation from consolidation, 

and recycling of their own products generated as waste by households plus a pro rated share 

of orphan waste. Maine DEP must provide manufacturers and consolidators with a listing of 

each manufacturer’s pro rated share of computer monitors and televisions. Manufacturers are 

 

244 http://www.state.me.us/spo/recycle/hhw/electronics/index.php (15 February 2005). 
Technology Administration 

114 Recycling Technology Products

to submit a compliance plan to Maine DEP by March 1, 2005, and are to annually report on 

collection and recycling of their own products starting January 1, 2007. 

Maine DEP must report on recycling of e-waste to the Legislature bi-annually from 2008 to 

2014. All vendors of electronic devices to the State must provide take-back and management 

services at end-of-life for those products. State purchasing preference will be given to 

electronic devices that incorporate design for the environment. 

Maine’s law, unlike California’s Electronic Recycling Act of 2003, assigns significant 

responsibility to manufacturers of electronics products, in that television and computer 

monitor manufacturers are required to develop and submit plans for compliance as well as to 

finance transport and recycling of their own products. Some manufacturers opposed this bill, 

while others such as Hewlett-Packard Company, strongly supported the bill.245

In regards to labeling and reporting requirements, there are similarities between the two 

states. For example, electronics products sold in both California and Maine are required to 

affix a permanent label that clearly identifies the manufacturer. The date for this labeling 

requirement to go into effect in both states is January 1, 2005. Some reporting requirements 

are similar in California and Maine: manufacturers will be required to report such issues as 

the number of electronic products sold in the states during the previous year and the amount 

of hazardous materials and recycled materials. But because of the responsibility Maine 

imposes on manufacturers, manufacturers of televisions and computer monitors who sell 

there are also required to develop and submit a plan for the collection, recycling, and/or reuse 

of televisions and computer monitors and report on the collection and recycling services used 

to recover their product. Additional costs to manufacturers would include accurately labeling 

all products with the name of manufacturer and tracking, on a state rather than regional basis, 

products sold and the materials used in those products. 

Maryland: HB 575 

HB 575 went into effect July 1, 2005, and requires manufacturers of desktop personal 

computers, laptops, and computer monitors to offer a take back program to consumers free of 

charge or pay an increased fee. The bill establishes the Statewide Computer Recycling Pilot 

Program for a period of five and a half years to be administered by the Maryland Department 

of the Environment Office of Recycling. On January 1st, 2006, all manufacturers producing 

on average more than 1,000 computers per year over the last three years will have to pay an 

initial registration fee of $5000. It will be unlawful to sell a computer in Maryland if not 

registered with the state. Manufacturers will pay a reduced registration fee of $500 annually 

if they comply with the conditions set forth in the bill: establishing a computer take-back 

program to recover their systems at no cost to the consumer and properly labeling their 

computers with their name. If they fail to comply, they will continue to pay the annual fee of 

$5000. According to the legislation, the registration fees are to be deposited in a State 

Recycling Trust Fund which will be used to administer the program, fund the counties 

 

245 National Resources Council of Maine, Legislature Establishes Recycling for Old Computers and TV’s, April 

20, 2004, http://www.maineenvironment.org/toxics/ewaste_bill_passes.htm, (November 11, 2004). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 115

collection and recycling plans, and deposit some portion in the General Fund.246 The law 

further instructs the Department of Environmental Protection to study the effectiveness of the 

program and the public health impacts of disposing of and recycling cathode ray tubes by 

Dec. 1, 2008. 

Massachusetts: H1533 

In 1998, Massachusetts launched a multi-part strategy to develop an electronics-recycling 

infrastructure with a particular focus on CRTs. Accomplishments to date include: 

1. In 1999, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) 

banned the disposal of CRTs—from individuals or companies—at municipal solid 

waste disposal facilities, effective April 1, 2000. Massachusetts was the first state 

to ban the disposal of CRTs by individuals. 

2. MA DEP helped establish over 70 municipal CRT collection programs through its 

Recycling Grants Program. For municipalities, the cost of CRT recycling fell by 

60 percent from 1999 to 2001. MA DEP also developed a guidance document for 

municipalities on recycling CRTs and other electronics. 

3. MA DEP established six permanent regional collection centers across the state. 

4. MA DEP initiated a research and development plan to promote markets for 

residential CRTs. The agency is also working to establish a "guaranteed market" 

for collected electronics through a single-payer state electronics-recycling 

contract.247

Minnesota: SF 838 and H.F. 882 

Minnesota has a statewide ban on the disposal of computer monitors and televisions in mixed 

municipal solid waste, effective July 1, 2005 (SF 905 Section 129). Legislation for a 

statewide recycling program was introduced in the 2005 legislative session (H.F. 882). Only 

subdivision 2 of this bill, banning the disposal of any item with a CRT in a landfill, was 

signed by the Governor. 

Other activities in Minnesota to boost electronics recycling include Hennepin County 

teaming up with the City of Minneapolis in 1998 to start a curbside collection program for 

electronic equipment containing CRTs. The addition of Minneapolis to Hennepin County's 

pre-existing program increased the collection of old electronics and more than doubled the 

collection of CRTs. 248 This recycling program in Hennepin County collected 1,500 tons in 

2003, 98,118 units (44,432 CRTs), or 2.62 pounds per capita, for a total cost of $1.4 million. 

The cost of recycling was $0.48/lb, not including the cost of curbside pickup; $0.33/lb or 67 

percent went towards processing; 25 percent for recycling and disposal; 7 percent for 

 

246 Unofficial copy of House bill 575 http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/bills/hb/hb0575t.pdf linked to Maryland 

State E-cycling in Maryland website 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/LandPrograms/Recycling/SpecialProjects/ecycling.asp (February 8, 

2006). 

247 EPA, Product Stewardship: Electronics – State/Local Initiatives website. 248 EPA, Product Stewardship: Electronics – State/Local Initiatives website. 
Technology Administration 

116 Recycling Technology Products

hauling; and 1 percent for other. Dismantling was done by a non-profit job training facility in 

a labor-intensive process with laborers paid minimum wage. 

New Hampshire: HB 1455 

In New Hampshire, May 26, 2006, the governor signed into law HB 1455 that bans video 

display devices from landfills and incinerators as of July 1, 2007. Video display devices 

defined as a "visual display component of a television or a computer, whether separate or 

integrated with a computer central processing unit/box, and includes a cathode ray tube, 

liquid crystal display, gas plasma, digital light processing, or other image projection 

technology, greater than 4 inches when measured diagonally, and its case, interior wires, and 

circuitry."249

Oregon: SB 867, HB 2971, HB 3563, SB 740 

In Oregon, SB 867 was signed by the Governor on August 22, 2003. It encourages Oregon to 

continue dialogue through the National Electronics Products Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) 

and to develop a national system for managing end-of-life electronics, but it enables the state 

to move ahead on its own if a national solution is not forthcoming.250 This legislation also 

calls for the creation of an Advisory Committee on Electronic Product Stewardship to 

evaluate market-based solutions to the problem of electronic products disposal. In addition to 

creating an advisory committee, it also calls for a pilot program to recycle and reuse 

electronics products. The unique aspect of this legislation is that it approached the problem of 

e-waste through economic development and also set up a collaborative process to manage ewaste, which involves producers, retailers, and consumers.251

Rhode Island: H7527 

In February 2001, Rhode Island became the first state to establish a permanent, statewide 

recycling collection facility for computers, owing to the success of a pilot program in 2000 in 

which the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corp. (RIRRC) collected 87 tons of computer 

equipment. During the pilot, RIRRC worked with Massachusetts-based CRT Recycling Inc., 

which took most items at no charge except for nonfunctioning monitors, which were charged 

$0.15 per pound. Working computers are refurbished and distributed for reuse, while broken 

computer equipment is recycled. The program only accepts residential equipment.252

Washington: HB 2488 and 1942 

The Governor of the State of Washington signed on March 24th a comprehensive Electronic 

Product Recycling Law based on producer responsibility to be operational by January 1, 

2009. The bill requires manufacturers of televisions, computer monitors, desktop and laptops 

computers to join the State’s standard plan or gives companies that have more than five 

percent market share the option of creating an independent plan to manage their equivalent 

share of collected products. The program requires that manufacturers provide free electronics 

recycling to the consumer. It uses community drop-off centers run by retailers, nonprofits 

 

249 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, http://www.des.state.nh.us/swtas/, (20 June 2006). 250 Product Stewardship Institute, United States Electronics Legislation Summary, March 27, 2003, p.5. 251 Product Stewardship Institute, United States Electronics Legislation Summary, March 27, 2003, p.5. 252 EPA, Product Stewardship Electronics – State/Local Initiatives website. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 117

and government agencies. The Washington State Department of Ecology estimates that 

between 2003 and 2010 over 4.5 million personal computer units, 3.5 million cathode ray 

tube monitors and 1.5 million flat panel monitors will become obsolete in Washington. 253

Proposed Legislation 

(Following are some examples of legislation introduced in state legislatures as of August 

2005) 

Connecticut: HB 5375, HB 6259, HB 6267, HB 6269 

There were four bills in committee in Connecticut in 2004 in relation to electronics recycling. 

HB 5375 would establish a recycling program for certain electronic devices, which would be 

funded by a $10 fee collected on these products by retailers at the point-of-sale. These funds 

would be deposited into an electronic recycling account, which would reimburse 

municipalities, operating committees, or other authorities that fund collection and would be 

used to create grant programs for municipalities to create or enhance their own electronics 

recycling programs. This legislation is similar to HB 6259, except that HB 6259 refers only 

to ‘municipalities’ while HB 5375 would provide funds from the electronics recycling 

account to additional entities conducting recycling programs. The bill does not specify 

whether fees collected would be an ARF or EOL fees. 

HB 6267 proposes the establishment of a recycling program for certain electronic devices 

and the imposition of a recycling fee to fund such a system. This bill is intended to reduce 

lead in the environment and to set up a collection system for these products where no system 

currently exists. 

HB 6269 would establish a recycling program for electronic products containing CRTs, using 

an ARF. A $10 fee imposed upon the sale of electronics products containing CRTs would 

finance this system, and these funds would be deposited into an electronics recycling trust 

account. These funds could then be allocated to local municipalities for recycling programs 

for such products and to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to fund 

consumer education programs as well as local government assistance programs related to 

electronic products with CRTs. 

Florida: SB 674, SB 678 

In Florida, Senate Bills 674 and 678 were introduced in 2003 to establish and fund a 

management system to collect and recycle end-of-life electronics products. This legislation 

would institute an ARF of $10 on electronics products at retailers and would be collected by 

the Florida Department of Revenue. These fees would then be placed into a trust fund and 

would be used to develop the infrastructure needed for collection and recycling services.254

Both bills were withdrawn. 

Florida is promoting recycling infrastructure development by providing time-limited funding. 

Since 1998, the Florida Legislature has authorized over $2 million in grants for collection 

and recycling infrastructure development. These grants have provided seed money to 23 

 

253 See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/eproductrecycle/. 254 Product Stewardship Institute, United States Electronics Legislation Summary, March 27, 2003, pp. 1-2. 
Technology Administration 

118 Recycling Technology Products

Florida counties for the development of sustainable and on-going electronics collection and 

recycling programs at the county level. In addition, a private electronics recycler received a 

grant to provide a comprehensive recycling demonstration project, centered on a major urban 

county. 255

Michigan: S.B. 218 and S.B. 495 

S.B. 218 was introduced in February 2005 to amend the Natural Resources & Environmental 

Protection Act. It commissions a study on effective means for recycling e-waste and places a 

ban on disposal, covering CRTs. It required a task force to make recommendations by 

December 1, 2005, with the ban on CRT disposal to begin on June 1, 2006. 

S.B. 495 was introduced in May 2005 intended to also amend the Natural Resources & 

Environmental Protection Act. The bill would require that state-owned consumer electronics 

be recycled. The state would have to establish recycling procedures and ensure that disposals 

were conducted according to these procedures. It would mandate that the state conduct a 

study on the feasibility of a state-wide electronics recycling plan for consumer electronics, to 

be reported within one year of the effective date of the legislation. It would cover TVs and 

monitors, computers, computer peripherals, audio and stereo equipment, VCRs, DVD 

players, video cameras, telephones, cell phones, wireless devices, and video game consoles. 

Minnesota: SF 838 and H.F. 882, S.F. 1595 and H.F. 1729. 

Legislation for a statewide recycling program was introduced in the 2005 legislative session 

(H.F. 882). H.F. 882 would have: required manufacturers to submit to the state a plan for the 

collection and recycling of their products; stipulated that the cost of recycling had to be 

internalized and not passed on to consumers; explicitly mentioned both click-and-mortar as 

well as brick-and-mortar operations; and made the legislation subject to federal pre-emption 

with expiration of the state legislation 30 days after the implementation of a national plan. 

Only subdivision 2 of this bill, banning the disposal of any item with a CRT in a landfill, was 

signed by the Governor. 

Two other bills were introduced in 2005 related to electronics recycling: S.F. 1595 and H.F. 

1729. Under these bills, each producer would be responsible for financing the management 

of electronic waste, which may include a unique ARF for each product which could be as 

much as the actual cost of collection and transportation of historic waste similar to the new 

purchased product. A producer’s recycling plan must include details on how to reimburse 

local governments, nonprofit corporations, and retailers for the cost of collection and 

recycling of the producer’s covered electronic products. This legislation would cover: 

Appliances that contain complex circuitry, circuit boards, and one or more hazardous 

elements, including but not limited to TVs (CRTs/flat panel devices), audio and stereo 

equipment, monitors, computers, VCRs, keyboards, printers, telephones, fax machines, 

educational devices, toys, games, and major household appliances. The legislation also 

contains a federal preemption clause. 

 

255 EPA, Product Stewardship: Electronics – State/Local Initiatives website. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 119

New York: SO1287, SO1562, SO1563, SO0636 and AO3390 

SO1287: 

The Electronic Equipment Recycling Act introduced in January 2005 directs research into 

which products should be recycled, how this would be accomplished most efficiently, and 

what would be an adequate funding mechanism. This bill covers mainly CRTs, though there 

is a mention of items that contain complex circuitry. 

SO1562: 

This act is to amend the tax law to establish a personal income credit for costs incurred for 

the purpose of recycling electronic equipment and was introduced in January 2005. The bill 

would cover: appliances that contain complex circuitry, circuit boards or signal processing, 

and one or more hazardous elements, including but not limited to TVs, audio and stereo 

equipment, monitors, computers, VCRs, keyboards, printers, telephones, fax machines, and 

microwaves. 

SO1563: 

This act, introduced in January 2005, would amend the environmental conservation law by 

directing the commissioner of the environmental conservation to promulgate and adopt 

standards and guidelines within one year for the recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing of 

electronic equipment. It would cover the same items as SO1562. 

SO0636 and AO3390: 

This act would amend the general business law the environmental conservation law requiring 

retailers to accept used wireless telephones for recycling or reuse. The bills were introduced 

in early 2005. Each phone would have to be recycled in accordance with the Environmental 

Conservation Law, but there was no mention of a monitoring or tracking system. 

New York City INT. 643: 

The Equipment Recycling and Reuse Act of 2005 was introduced in May 2005. It stipulates 

that manufacturers of covered items must submit a plan for collecting and recycling these 

items to the department of sanitation. This bill covers CPUs, CRTs, keyboards, mice, TVs, 

computer monitors, video display devices greater then 4”, laptops, and portable digital music 

players. 

North Carolina H.B. 1765 

The Electronics Recycling Tax and Electronics Recycling Act of 2005, introduced in May 

2005, would impose a tax of one percent to two percent on manufacturers that do not have 

their own recycling plan. A one percent privilege tax would be imposed on manufacturers 

who distribute their products within the state and have not submitted a recycling plan. An 

additional one percent excise tax would be imposed on manufacturers who distribute their 

electronic products outside the state, but store their products within the state, and have not 

submitted a recycling plan. Manufacturers would have to develop and submit a product 

management plan, including a method for recycling, as well as paying $20,000 to the 

Department on Environmental Matters for administrative costs in running the program. Items 

covered in the Act are CPUs, computer monitors, laptops, TVs, and video display devices 

with screen size greater then nine inches. 
Technology Administration 

120 Recycling Technology Products

Oregon: HB 2971, HB 3563, SB 740 

In Oregon, two bills with an ARF were introduced in Oregon in 2003 that related to 

electronics products. HB 2971 would have imposed a $50 fee on every CRT product levied at 

the point of sale. This bill would also have prohibited CRTs and CRT products from disposal 

in the solid waste system. HB 3563 would have imposed a $3 fee on every television, 

computer monitor, CPU, laptop, circuit board, and electronic wiring sold in Oregon. The fee 

would have been collected at the point of sale. These fees would have been deposited into an 

Electronic Products Account, which would be used by the Department of Environmental 

Quality to develop the electronic management infrastructure as well as consumer education 

programs.256

In February 2005, SB 740 was introduced which would have created the Oregon Electronic 

Product Stewardship Act. This act would have required a $10 or less ARF to be attached to 

covered items, with retailers keeping three percent of the ARF to cover administrative costs. 

Manufacturers would have been responsible for setting up recycling plans, which would have 

been required to be approved by the Electronic Product Stewardship Account. Covered items 

were: CPUs, monitors, laptops, TVs with a display larger than nine inches, and printers. 

Rhode Island: H7527 

H7527 proposed that the Mercury Reduction Oversight Commission submit no later than 

January 30, 2005, a recommended plan, including any legislation necessary to implement a 

plan for the collection and recycling of electronic waste that utilizes producer 

responsibility.257 This system is intended to be convenient and to minimize costs to the 

taxpayers and to consumers of electronics products. As mentioned, it sets out a system where 

the producers of electronics products finance the costs for collecting, recycling, and 

disposing their products and that these costs be internalized before the point of purchase. The 

legislation also allows for manufacturers to act in partnership with each other and/or with 

state, municipal, and regional governments to provide collection and develop and implement 

a safe and cost-effective system for handling these products. 

 

256 Product Stewardship Institute, United States Electronics Legislation Summary, March 27, 2003, p.5. 257 For copy of bill see Rhode Island Office of the Secretary of State 

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText04/HouseText04/H7527.htm, (28 Feb 2005). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 121

Remarks by Benjamin H. Wu, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, to 

The National Conference of State Legislatures 2005 Annual Meeting 

NCSL Environment and Natural Resource Committee 

August 17, 2005 

The growth of the American high-technology sector has been one of the great stories of the 

past few decades, and there’s perhaps no better example of technology’s transformative 

power than right here in Seattle. A healthy percentage of our nation’s $400 billion high-tech 

and electronics industry can be found in this region. So, it’s not only very appropriate for us 

to be here to discuss e-waste, an issue of growing importance to the high-tech industry, but 

also for NCSL to be here as well, because the technology industry is increasingly facing 

policy issues that go beyond the federal level to the state level. From this morning’s opening 

keynote from Microsoft’s Bill Gates to the fact that a quarter of the 150 conference sessions 

are tech-related, technology is certainly a major focus of this year’s NCSL activities. In part 

due to the leadership in state legislatures, the U.S. technology industry continues today to be 

a driver of economic growth and our quality of life by providing electronics products that can 

educate us, entertain us, enthrall us, connect us, and make us more productive. 

These electronics products are now ubiquitous in our society. All one needs to do is attend 

the Consumer Electronics Show or go to your local Best Buy, Circuit City, or Radio Shack to 

understand that the rapid growth of electronics products is the wave of our future, and 

sustaining that innovative growth may very well determine our nation’s ability to compete in 

the global marketplace. The proliferation of consumer electronics products is a modern-day 

reality. 

As Americans begin to dispose of early generation electronics products that have reached the 

end of their life cycle, or choose to upgrade to newer models, the issue of waste disposal (or 

“e-waste”) is an issue that lawmakers and policymakers are confronting. 

It’s an issue that is literally piling up in our landfills, which contain waste elements that may 

hold some recyclable value but also may contain elements, especially in the early generation 

products, that could make their disposal and presence in the landfills potentially hazardous. 

Take, as an example, the computer that sits right now in your legislative office. 

It probably contains at least trace amounts of lead, aluminum, iron, nickel, arsenic, cadmium, 

mercury, titanium, zinc, beryllium, and gold. Multiply that by the number of electronics 

products out in the marketplace and it begs some to question the potential environmental 

impact. According to the Consumer Electronics Association, Americans own some 2 billion 

electronics products – about 24 products per household. Over the next 20 years, the typical 

American household is expected to dispose of 68 different devices including: 10 computers, 

20 cell phones, 7 televisions, and several VCR’s, CD and/or DVD players, answering 
Technology Administration 

122 Recycling Technology Products

machines, and printers, according to the Consumers Union. According to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, while e-waste is currently less than 1.5% of municipal 

solid waste, its growth rate is accumulating at three times the rate of other household trash 

and totals about 2.2 million tons. Those 2.2 million tons of electronics products discarded 

could fill over 200 jet airplanes which Boeing manufactures right here in Seattle just a few 

miles away. Computers are now so much more affordable that consumers are choosing to 

simply replace them quickly when they have a desire to enhance their high-performance 

Internet connectivity or a need to disinfect spyware on their systems. 

Then there’s the digital television transition, which, if as expected, could “pull the plug” on 

those not digital-ready TV’s in 21 million households over the next four to five years – which 

has led some to ask: “What is going to happen to all those old TV sets then?” 

Furthermore, it is thought that the majority of Americans are currently hoarding large 

portions of their electronic waste in their basements and attics, feeling that their old computer 

or television might still have some value while being uncertain of how to dispose of them. As 

further generations of technology evolve and consumers dispose of their currently hoarded 

goods, a tsunami of electronics waste may hit us in the coming years. 

As a consequence, and in an attempt to create incentives to recycle electronics, state 

legislatures from Sacramento to Annapolis have taken action to address this problem. 

Three states have already enacted laws – California, Maine, and Maryland – and in the first 

half of 2005 alone, 30 state and local legislatures saw more than 50 separate bills introduced 

on the issue, including an e-waste measure introduced and still active in New York City. 

In the U.S. Congress, several pieces of legislation have already been introduced in the first 

session of the 109th Congress to try and tackle the issue on a national scale. 

Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality, and the Department of Commerce have been engaged on the issue of 

reuse, recycle, remanufacture, and e-waste. 

You may ask, "Why is the Department of Commerce so engaged on an environmental 

issue?" Simply put, it all comes down to one word: “competitiveness.” Our mission at the 

Department of Commerce is to enhance our nation’s ability to compete in the 21st century 

global economy – to preserve our U.S. innovation base and to maintain our technological 

preeminence. How our e-waste solutions are developed and who is involved in the decision 

process can dramatically affect the U.S. technology industry’s manufacturing and marketing 

business models, as well as their competitiveness. At the Department of Commerce’s 

Technology Administration, as the portal for the U.S. high-technology industry, we have 

heard the concerns from industry regarding the need for an industry-led consensus that will 

give certainty to the U.S. high-technology sector. Towards that goal, over the past year, we 

have worked to: Complement EPA’s already-existing activities; Advance the drive to a 

consensus; Meet with affected stakeholders; 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 123

Convene a roundtable; Issue a Federal Register notice for comment; and Will soon be issuing 

an overview of e-waste policy issues in order to educate and inform Congress on relevant 

issues to be considered, as they proceed with legislative consideration. 

This overview, which is gleaned from lessons learned from our e-waste activities will 

provide background on the issue of electronics recycling, including an explanation of the 

different possible components of a recycling system. The overview will also be posted on our 

website www.technology.gov and, if you’re interested, I would be happy to take your 

business card at the conclusion of my remarks so that we can notify you when the report 

comes out. 

In the short time I have with you this afternoon, I would like to: (1) Briefly review the major 

issues affecting e-waste and summarize some of our findings from our soon-to-be released 

report; (2) Update you on activities on the federal level; and (3) Tee-up some of the 

important questions that will be raised here at Friday’s panel session, featuring experts and 

stakeholders who will go into greater depth and detail over the intricacies of issues affecting 

the life-cycle of electronics technology products. 

As you either know already, or will hear on Friday, there are numerous opinions, various 

perspectives, and any number of stumbling blocks involved with this issue. It was Senator 

John Thune from South Dakota, who chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works 

subcommittee review a few weeks ago, who said in his opening statement: “As I have 

discovered in preparation for this hearing, it seems that this issue is very similar to the layers 

of an onion – the more you learn, the more complex it becomes.” 

Electronics waste disposal and recycling is indeed a multi-faceted and intricate issue – one 

which has not been easily drawn to consensus. The debate is still on-going, despite several 

attempts at reaching unanimity encompassing several years. That’s because the issue 

involves many stakeholders and the impacts of the decisions any level of government makes 

concerning electronics recycling holds ramifications that are far-ranging – not only having 

environmental impacts, but also extending to the health of U.S businesses and their ability to 

compete internationally. 

It’s important that we involve all of the stakeholders who may be affected by electronics 

recycling legislation so that we will be able to fully understand the implications of actions 

undertaken, and provide the opportunity for all affected parties to offer their input into 

shaping the most effective solution. 

A growing concern is that as several states have begun consideration of different legislative 

proposals – and with California, Maine, and Maryland already passing three distinctly 

different approaches to manage electronics waste – it’s conceivable that within the United 

States there could be as many as 50 different sets of laws or regulations which will 

significantly impact an important sector of the U.S. economy. 

What would be the result of such disparate requirements? For starters: Significant burdens 

for a globally competitive industry to comply with potentially non-uniform mandates; the 
Technology Administration 

124 Recycling Technology Products

need to reconfigure manufacturing requirements on a state-by-state basis; and radical 

disruptions of a tech company’s current distribution models. 

We have heard industry’s deep concerns that leaving this issue to the states becomes 

problematic because of the cost of compliance with a mishmash of international and state 

laws. Companies and consumers will be confused, including those who want to do the right 

thing, and the best-laid plans may mean that not a whole lot of recycling would ultimately get 

done. Industry believes a national solution is required because conflicting state legislation 

would lead to uncertainties, inefficiencies, and high compliance costs that will impede their 

ability to be competitive and innovative. Industry is focusing on efforts to create a national 

system that will achieve the goal of increasing recycling while not hindering interstate 

commerce. 

If Congress is to act and move towards a national solution, they will need to examine a range 

of possibilities, which may include the establishment of: A government sponsored recycling 

program; An Advance Recovery Fee (ARF), a fee paid by the consumer at the time of 

purchase that would offset the cost of the eventual recycling of the product which is the basis 

for the 2003 California law; A producer responsibility model, where each manufacturer 

would be responsible for its own products and a certain percentage of orphaned products 

(electronics waste produced by a company that is no longer in business or cannot be 

identified); A consumer mail-in program; A deposit refund system; and/or several 

combinations of the above possibilities. 

Congress must also ensure that all stakeholders should be considered in any national plan. 

These stakeholders should include, but are not limited to: Electronics manufacturers; 

Retailers – who are often overlooked; Recyclers; Environmental groups; and Last, but 

certainly not least, consumers. 

Additionally, Congress may weigh several other issues that they could take into 

consideration when devising a strategy for electronics recycling. They include such issues as: 

Which products should be considered for a program, and how they should be gradually 

phased in; How discarded products should be collected and transported and by whom; How 

new products should be classified and sold on the Internet without leaving brick-and-mortar 

retailers at a competitive disadvantage due to mandated fees; How orphaned products should 

be addressed; and How consumers can be encouraged to actively participate in any 

established recycling program. From our Commerce activities, here are some consensus 

points if there is to be a national solution. 

There are several areas in which many or most stakeholders have been able to reach 

agreement. Stakeholders want a system that is effective, efficient, enforceable, 

environmentally friendly, and adequately financed, with equal treatment and equal 

responsibilities for producers in the marketplace. Representatives of industry, retailers, 

recyclers, and environmental organizations that participated in our technology recycling 

roundtable all agreed on product stewardship as a goal. Also, the roundtable participants, 

those stakeholders who were engaged in the EPA-led National Electronics Product 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 125

Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI), and the majority of commentors responding to our Federal 

Register notice, all agreed that a national system of electronics recycling is preferable to a 

state-by-state system. If there is to be a national system of electronics recycling, the scope of 

consideration may include the following criteria: 

Product Coverage: 

• Define covered products clearly to eliminate guesswork and lengthy negotiations 

between producers and retailers 

Collection: 

• Set performance goals such as targets for percent or weight per capita for collection 

and recycling. 

• Provide flexibility for local and regional solutions in collection methods, such as 

using collection incentive payments, not mandates or a centrally proscribed collection 

process. 

Recycling: 

• Change the treatment of e-waste under existing solid waste regulation so that 

electronics products can be reused and recycled properly without triggering 

“hazardous waste” regulations. 

• Set environmentally sound management guidelines for recycling and provide a 

system of auditing to ensure that dismantlers and recyclers are evaluated against these 

guidelines. 

• Control the export of hazardous electronics waste to developing countries either for 

disposal or for recycling to organizations and countries not in compliance with U.S. 

treatment of the same materials. 

• Maintain the flexibility to find the best recycling solutions on an international level 

within the confines of environmentally sound management guidelines 

Financing: 

• Establish procedures to oversee and enforce the system to ensure fairness and uniform 

participation, regardless of the financing system chosen. 

• Many stakeholders expressed concern that if the government managed funds that 

were collected to finance a recycling system, the government could use the funds for 

other purposes. Thus, many stakeholders recommended using a Third Party 

Organization (TPO), outside of the government, to manage the system and to build 

competition and market forces into the system from the beginning in order to keep 

costs low. 
Technology Administration 

126 Recycling Technology Products

Minimizing Compliance Costs and Maximizing Participation: 

• Standardize product labeling requirements, product literature requirements, 

information on packaging requirements, and reporting requirements so producers face 

only one set of requirements for compliance across the country. 

• If design standards or material bans are part of legislation, include industry in their 

development. 

• Ensure a level playing field for all manufacturers so there are no free riders and no ECommerce loopholes. 

• Regardless of which system commentors preferred, many mentioned the need for 

Federal legislation to ensure that all competing producers within a product category 

are mandated to participate and meet the same high standards for collecting and 

recycling or reusing their electronics products. 

• Mandate that manufacturers who sell over the Internet and foreign manufacturers are 

full participants in the recycling program, including any collection and remittance of 

fees and responsibilities. 

Incentives for a Market-driven Solution: 

• Use the Federal Government’s leverage as one of the country’s largest IT buyers to 

drive design improvements, manufacturer participation in recycling solutions, and 

end-of-life services. 

• Increase use of Federal Government programs that Federal agencies can voluntarily 

choose to join, such as the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the Recycling 

Electronics and Asset Disposition (READ) contract. 

• Develop incentives in the private sector for DfR and DfE through programs that 

reward environmentally friendly design, such as EPEAT, Energy Star, DfE Program, 

and the Green Suppliers Network. 

• Stimulate recycling and the market for recycled content and products using tax, 

procurement, or other incentives. 

• Educate consumers about the importance of recycling and the opportunities for 

recycling. 

So, what’s the next step and what will Congress do? I can’t speak for Congress and even 

having worked there for 13 years does not allow me to predict what this 109th Congress will 

do, but I can tell you that I have never seen before in the hallowed halls of the “other” 

Washington such a dynamic attempt to develop a course of action on e-waste and such a 

sincere spirit of bipartisanship to find a national solution. It's manifested itself in just the past 

few months by the introduction of several pieces of Congressional legislation. 

The first set of Congressional e-waste hearings, initially in the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee chaired by Congressman Gillmor of Ohio on July 20, then followed a week later 

in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chaired by Senator Thune of South 

Dakota on July 26. Chairman Gillmor is also expected to follow-up with another hearing in 

September when Congress reconvenes; and the establishment of the bipartisan House E-
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 127

Waste Working Group to develop a national solution while educating Members of Congress 

about the issue; The Working Group is led by Congressman Cunningham of California, 

Congresswoman Bono of California, Congressman Thompson of California, and 

Congresswoman Slaughter of New York. 

In speaking to the Senators, Congressmen, and their staffs about this issue, I can sense a real 

desire for moving forward, the need to address the issue, and no discernable pride of 

authorship in the development of a national solution. So, I believe all the ingredients are 

there for Congressional action –the momentum, the leadership, and the desire. 

Are all these ingredients enough or does the recipes for a national solution require more? 

More from Congress? More from industry? More from the stakeholders? More from the 

states? 

And what should you, as a state legislator, take away from all of this recent Congressional 

activity? Should states now defer to Congress and hold off on establishing yet another 

potentially disparate requirement for industry to follow? 

What if despite all the sound and fury, there is ultimately no federal action, shouldn’t states 

be encouraged to act? How long are states supposed to wait for a national solution before 

they address the issues within their own state? 

What about the benefits of having states act? Doesn’t state action spur the creation of a 

recycling infrastructure necessary for a national solution to work? Doesn’t state and local 

action spur public education on the issues? 

As you can see, there are many questions, with no easy answers. These questions will be 

raised and, hopefully, answered to some satisfaction at Friday’s panel discussion. In 

preparation for Friday, however, they’re worth thinking about now. While certain states have 

already enacted legislation, and many other states are moving in that direction, it seems clear 

that it will take several years for each state to determine the impact of their actions and 

legislation. It’s therefore important for states to stay involved on the national level and share 

successes and challenges. 

Federally, we’re committed to assisting a common-sense, national approach to the e-waste 

challenge – one that provides certainty, consistency, and clarity for consumers, governments, 

and all stakeholders. Removing unnecessary burdens to the technology sector’s ability to 

compete in today’s global market remains critical for the industry and our nation. We will 

work together with you, Congress, the technology industry, manufacturers, retailers, 

recyclers, consumers, and all affected stakeholders to help fashion a balanced, equitable 

solution so that we can not only preserve our environment but also our nation’s economic 

strength for our children. 

Thank you. I would be happy to take your questions. 
Technology Administration 

128 Recycling Technology Products

APPENDIX VI 

RECYCLING MODELS FROM OTHER INDUSTRIES 

The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation 

Beginning in 1989, when Connecticut passed a battery law, states have taken the initiative on 

legislation to recycle dry cell batteries. Minnesota in 1990 and New Jersey in 1992 passed 

what remains the most far-reaching battery legislation in the nation. Both states require that 

rechargeable batteries be easily removable from products, have labels that indicate proper 

disposal procedures, and be banned from the municipal waste stream. Also, they mandate 

that manufacturers take rechargeable batteries back at their own expense for proper disposal 

or recycling. Prior to the passage of the Minnesota and New Jersey laws, the technology 

needed for recycling batteries in the U.S. was available, but rarely used. These state’s laws 

prompted the development of a battery recycling infrastructure.258

In 1991, in response to battery legislation being introduced around the country, the five 

largest rechargeable battery manufacturers in the country broke away from the trade 

associations that had traditionally represented them and formed the Portable Rechargeable 

Battery Association (PRBA). These manufacturers were: Panasonic, Sanyo, Saft, Varta, and 

Gates Energy Products. Through the PRBA, these companies lobbied at the state and Federal 

levels, addressed government policies, and committed themselves to the development of a 

take-back program for rechargeable batteries.

In 1994, the PRBA assisted in the formation of the Rechargeable Battery Recycling 

Cooperation (RBRC), an independent nonprofit public service organization, which began 

physically facilitating the collection of rechargeable batteries and licensing its seal to fund 

the program. The mission of the organization is “to perform a public service through the 

management, collection and recycling of used nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd), Nickel Metal 

Hydride (Ni-MH), Lithium Ion (Li-ion) and Small Sealed Lead (Pb) throughout the United 

States.”259 This goal involves educating the public on battery recycling, and collecting and 

recycling batteries for its licensees – manufacturers who fund their programs. The PRBA also 

supported Federal legislation on battery recycling. 

Federal Legislation 

On May 13, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Mercury-Containing and 

Rechargeable Battery Management Act (The Battery Act). This Act proved to be a major 

step forward in the effort to facilitate the recycling of nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) and certain 

small sealed lead-acid (SSLA) rechargeable batteries and to phase out the use of mercury in 

batteries. 

 

258 Inform, http://www.informinc.org/recyclenicd.php. 259 Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, www.rbrc.com. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 129

The Battery Act was the culmination of a five-year effort by the battery industry which 

sought to remove regulatory barriers to the collection and recycling of batteries. 

Acknowledging the steady increase in the use of rechargeable batteries, potential 

environmental impacts resulting from their improper disposal, and growing state legislation, 

Congress passed the Battery Act to facilitate the increased collection and recycling of Ni-Cd 

and certain SSLA rechargeable batteries. The Act targets battery and rechargeable product 

manufacturers and battery waste handlers; it does not apply to consumers. Specifically, the 

Act: 

• Establishes national, uniform labeling requirements for Ni-Cd and certain SSLA 

rechargeable batteries. 

• Mandates that each Ni-Cd and certain SSLA rechargeable batteries be “easily 

removable” from consumer products. A battery can be easily removed if it is 

detachable or removable from the product with the use of common household 

tools. 

• Makes the Universal Waste Rule effective immediately in all 50 states for the 

collection, storage, and transportation of batteries covered by the Battery Act. 

This eased the regulatory burden on battery handlers and transporters by 

streamlining a number of RCRA’s260 hazardous waste collection and management 

requirements, including those related to notification, labeling/marking, 

accumulation time limits, employee training, and offsite shipment, among others. 

• Requires EPA to establish a public education program on battery recycling and 

the proper handling and disposal of used batteries. EPA is required to consult with 

manufacturers and retailers to carry out this initiative. 

• Prohibits, or otherwise conditions, the sale of certain types of mercury-containing 

batteries (i.e., alkaline-manganese, zinc-carbon, button cell mercuric-oxide, and 

other mercuric-oxide batteries) in the United States. 

The EPA may require compliance and/or assess a civil penalty of up to $11,000 for each 

violation of the labeling, easy removability, and Title II requirements of the Act. Under an 

exemption to the Act’s enforcement provisions, EPA cannot take enforcement action against 

retailers for selling a battery or rechargeable product that does not meet the labeling or easy 

removability requirements of the Act. Thus, retailers do not have an incentive to ensure that 

the batteries they carry are in compliance with the Act and are not obligated to participate in 

or promote battery recycling programs. Despite this, RBRC reports that over 34 major 

national retailers participate in its program, representing over 30,000 retail collection sites. 

Additionally, the law would be difficult to enforce due to the manpower that would be 

required. While retailers are not liable for carrying batteries or rechargeable products that do 

not meet the Act’s labeling or easy removability requirements, importers are not exempt from 

 

260 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), governs the EPA’s authority to control hazardous 

waste. 
Technology Administration 

130 Recycling Technology Products

liability, and a retailer can be held liable by EPA if it has knowledge that the chemical 

contents of a battery are in violation of Title II of the Act.261

Under the Battery Act, states can implement and enforce any requirement that is identical to 

(and hence not more or less stringent than) that in the Act with respect to the labeling and 

easy removability of rechargeable batteries, and the collection, storage, and transportation of 

covered batteries. However, states are allowed to adopt more stringent requirements for any 

other provision of the Battery Act, such as those concerning the prohibition on the sale of 

certain mercury-containing batteries. Finally, the Battery Act does not govern recycling and 

disposal of covered batteries. Hence, states can continue to adopt and enforce standards for 

the recycling and disposal of covered batteries that are more stringent than existing Federal 

standards under RCRA. 

State Disposal Bans 

The following are states that now have Nickel Cadmium and Small Sealed Lead (Ni-Cd/Pb) 

disposal bans. All end users under their jurisdiction are prohibited from throwing those 

batteries in the trash and must send the batteries for recycling/proper disposal through 

manufacturer/distributor or other collection programs.262

• Florida • Iowa 

• Maine • Maryland 

• Minnesota • New Jersey 

• Vermont • Rhode Island 

The following are states with disposal bans covering all types of lead batteries (including but 

not specifying small sealed lead batteries). All end users are prohibited from throwing 

batteries in trash and must return them for recycling through retailers, distributors, or 

manufacturers or send directly to a secondary lead smelter.263

• Arizona • New Hampshire 

• Arkansas • New Mexico 

• California • North Carolina 

• Connecticut • North Dakota 

• Florida • Oregon 

• Hawaii • Pennsylvania 

• Indiana • South Carolina 

• Iowa • South Dakota 

• Kentucky • Texas 

• Louisiana • Utah 

• Maine • Vermont 

 

261 EPA, Implementation of the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/battery.txt. 

262 http://www.rbrc.com/business/index.html. 

263 Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, www.rbrc.com. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 131

RBRC Programs 

As a non-profit organization, the RBRC collection and recycling system is financially 

supported by license fees paid by battery manufacturers. Each Ni-Cd license fee is paid for 

individually and according to weight. The fee a manufacturer pays to put the RBRC seal on 

their product is $0.015 for a single AA size NICD battery and $0.25 for a 12 volt NiCd 

power tool battery. Ni-MH and Li-ion fees are based on voltage: $0.01 for Ni-MH and 

Lithium ion batteries up to 8 volts, and $0.02 for such batteries over 8 volts.264

RBRC is funded by the owner of the brand name on the battery pack as the licensee and the 

owner of the brand name on the consumer product as a sub-licensee. In order to deal with 

used batteries generated from many different origins, the RBRC has created three recycling 

plans--retail, community and public agencies, and business.

Retailers who are involved in the RBRC program participate free of charge. All 

transportation, handling, and recycling charges are paid by RBRC and funded by Seal fees. 

Retailers’ responsibilities entail setting up drop-off points in their stores and mailing the 

batteries to consolidation points. Originally, retail collection only took place in states that 

implemented the Universal Waste Rule or passed other laws permitting retailers to not be 

classified as hazardous waste handlers. It was not until the passage of the Battery Act in 1996 

that a nationwide retail collection program could begin.265

 

264 Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation. 265 Inform, http://www.informinc.org/recyclenicd.php. 

National Retail Participants -USA National Retail Participants -Canada

• Alltel 

• Batteries Plus 

• Best Buy 

• Black & Decker 

• Cingular Wireless 

• The Home Depot 

• Lowe's 

• Milwaukee Electric Tool 

• Office Depot 

• Porter Cable ServiceCtrs. 

• RadioShack 

• Remington Product Co. 

• Sears/Orchard Supply 

• Staples 

• Target 

• US Cellular 

• Verizon Wireless 

• Wal-Mart 

• Battery Plus 

• Bell Mobility 

• Canadian Tire 

• FIDO/Microcell 

• Future Shop 

• The Home Depot 

• Home Hardware 

• London Drugs 

• Makita Factory Service Centers 

• Personal Edge/Centre du Rasoir 

• RadioShack Canada 

• Revy 

• Sears 

• The Sony Store 

• Telus Mobility 

• Zellers 
Technology Administration 

132 Recycling Technology Products

The RBRC community and public agency program allows communities to use their existing 

local waste infrastructures to collect batteries and then ship them to one of the RBRC’s two 

consolidation areas. The program also provides an avenue for hospitals, police and fire 

departments to recycle the rechargeable batteries from their mission critical equipment. More 

than 2,370 communities and public agencies are currently enrolled. While the community is 

responsible for transporting the batteries to the RBRC, the RBRC pays all shipping costs. 

More than 2,370 communities and public agencies are currently enrolled.266

Businesses use increasingly large amounts of rechargeable batteries in their cellular phones, 

2-way radios, PDAs, and laptop computers. In the business program, the company supervises 

its own collection program and pays to ship them to RBRC consolidation points. The RBRC 

pays for all additional costs and nearly 2,000 companies participate in the program 

In the RBRC program, manufacturers who are licensees are allowed to collect their own 

batteries. Under the licensee collection programs, the RBRC pays for the recycling charges 

and container disposal fees, but the manufacturer pays for shipping used batteries in its own 

containers to the recycler. In order to avoid paying recycling fees twice by recycling its own 

batteries, if a manufacturer recycles its own Ni-Cd batteries through the RBRC program it is 

eligible for a rebate of 75% of its RBRC fees. 

After the 1996 Battery Act was passed, the RBRC began a nationwide campaign to educate 

the man on the street about battery recycling. The RBRC has used TV and radio, through a 

satellite media tour, print communication, news stories, its website, trade shows, airport 

banners, sponsoring a national Battery Check Day, and hiring Richard Karn (“Al” from the 

television show Home Improvement) as its spokesman, to inform the public about the 

environmental benefits of recycling batteries and how citizens can recycle. The RBRC 

considers educating the public to be one of the most critical factors in determining whether 

batteries get recycled or end up in a landfill. In 2004, the RBRC spent $4.5 million on its 

education campaign and plans to spend $6 million in 2005. 

As it stands, the RBRC has collected more than 25 million pounds of rechargeable batteries 

since 1996. Every year since 1997, the total number of batteries diverted from the nations’ 

solid waste stream has steadily increased, from 1.9 million pounds collected in 1997 to over 

4 million pounds collected in 2003. Based on a survey completed in the late 1990’s, the 

RBRC found that the number of batteries recycled each year equals roughly 25-30% of the 

number of batteries sold in a given year.267

However, RBRC representatives state that it is difficult to estimate the rate of return due to 

the amount of rechargeable batteries they believe people neither recycle or throw away when 

the product is no longer being used and instead, keep them in their household as a possible 

back up, a process that is referred to as “hoarding.” A 2003 hoarding survey found that on 

average, U.S. consumers keep the following products and the batteries that power them: cell 

phones: 5.1 years; cordless power tools: 9.6 years, personal care: 6.2 years. Additionally, the 

 

266 Inform, http://www.informinc.org/recyclenicd.php. 267 Interview with David Thompson, Panasonic, December 26, 2004. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 133

survey found that 66% of the people who own these items intend to eventually dispose of 

them. 

Challenges 

Prior to passage of the Federal Battery Act in 1996, RBRC found that conflicting state 

regulations were a barrier to its goal of creating an effective battery recycling system. 

Differences among state systems deterred manufacturers from making the costly effort to 

comply with multiple state battery-labeling and waste management regulations. The Act 

established national uniform labeling requirements for covered batteries and made the 

Universal Waste Rule effective in all fifty states for the collection, storage, and transportation 

of covered batteries. Thus, passage of the Federal law made it easier to transport batteries to 

the metal reclamation facility in Pennsylvania used by the RBRC. 

While the passage of the Federal Battery Act provided more certainty, challenges still 

remain. The Federal Battery Act applies to manufacturers and retailers, and does not ban the 

disposal of batteries by consumers. Enforcement of existing state laws banning battery 

disposal for both businesses and consumers is difficult. Due to batteries’ small size, it is easy 

for users to throw a battery away in the trash, thus, it is difficult to prevent batteries from 

entering the collective municipal solid waste stream and difficult to estimate the amount of 

batteries reaching landfills or incinerators. Educating the public is its greatest challenge. 

Also, some manufacturers decided to opt out of the RBRC program in favor of individual 

recycling programs. RBRC contends that many self-regulating recycling programs were 

inconvenient to customers and ineffective. 

Free riders remain a problem, particularly as new products using rechargeable batteries enter 

the market. Another difficulty is obtaining cooperation from foreign manufacturers. While 

many foreign companies, such as three of RBRC’s original founders, participate in the 

RBRC, many do not. Internet battery sales are also a challenge to RBRC programs. 

Currently, Internet sales are not regulated by Federal law and a consumer can order from the 

Internet any battery they choose, regardless of the environmental implications. 

U.S. and Canadian Tire Recycling Programs 

Tire recycling programs are funded by dealership end-of-life fees imposed on consumers to 

comply with state tire disposal regulations, and in 33 states a government managed state fee 

is imposed on consumers to abate old tire landfills. There is no national, industry, or 

consistent state legislation mandating tire recycling.268

At the end of 2001, the United States generated approximately 281 million scrap tires.269

Approximately seventy eight percent of all tires produced were recycled or returned to 

market as follows: 

 

268 Rubber Manufacturers Association, www.rma.org, November 2004. 269 EPA, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/tires/basic.htm. 
Technology Administration 

134 Recycling Technology Products

• 115 million (40.9 percent) are used as fuel 

• 40 million (14.2 percent) are recycled or used in civil engineering projects 

• 34 million (12.1 percent) are converted into ground rubber and recycled into 

products 

• 15 million (5.3 percent) are exported 

• 8 million (2.8 percent) are recycled into cut/stamped/punched products 

• 7 million (2.5 percent) are used in agricultural and miscellaneous uses 

From 1990 through 2002, the total number of scrap tires going to market increased from 11 

million (24.5 percent) of the 223 million generated to 218 million (77.6 percent) of the 281 

million generated as a result of fees collected by tire dealerships to fund state imposed 

disposal programs. This increase can also be attributed to state fees and initiatives undertaken 

by the economics of recycling scrap tires into a number of productive and environmentally 

safe applications. The remaining scrap tires are land filled. Assuming 218 million, or 77.6 

percent, of the 281 million tires generated annually: 

About 25 million scrap tires (10 percent) are estimated to be disposed of in municipal 

landfills or monofills (landfills solely for tires).270 Scrap tires are also exported and, 

according to Mexico's National Association of Tire Distributors, as many as 20 percent of 

tires sold in Mexico are imported as used tires from the United States and then retreaded for 

reuse. To-date, there is an estimated 275 million scrap tires still in landfills; down from 

nearly 1 billion tires since 1990.271

In the United States there is no Federal legislation for scrap tire disposal, as tires are 

considered solid waste and governed by state environmental regulations, nor are there 

uniform industry or state scrap tire management programs. All scrap tire management 

programs are individually managed at the state level and paid for by consumer fees to the 

state and/or dealership. Generally, all programs include: funding via taxes or fees on tires; 

market development activities; licensing or registration requirements for scrap tire haulers, 

processors, and some end users; manifests for scrap tire shipments; requirements regarding 

who may handle scrap tires; financial assurance requirements for scrap tire handlers, storage 

facilities, and disposers; and tire pile clean-up. 

In all states first sellers or dealerships are obligated by the state to adhere to tire disposal 

consistent with state environmental regulations and each states regulation may differ. This 

cost is passed on to the consumer by the dealership as an EOL disposal cost, that ranges from 

USD $1.00 to USD $2.50 per tire and is used to pay for the removal of the used tires as well 

as the final disposal that the customer wants the dealer to handle. The dealer then pays a tire 

hauling company a fee to take the tires to a processing plant. The tire hauler then pays the 

processing plant to shred the tires. The disposal fee charged by dealers is not regulated and 

 

270 Rubber Manufacturers Association, November 2004. 271 Scrap Tire Management Council, 

http://www.rma.org/scrap_tires/scrap_tire_markets/tire_disposal_study_exec_summary.pdf, (November 2004). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 135

dealers are free to charge any amount. Most dealers’ disposal fees are utilized for disposal 

and not simply as a way for increasing store profits. Of course, the customer could simply 

request to keep the old tires and not have to pay the disposal fee. The customer may be able 

to dispose of these old tires through the periodic miscellaneous solid/hazardous waste 

collection days that each city undertakes. In the case of Virginia, tires must be shred and the 

states 10 tire processing plants charge approximately USD $0.60 to shred each tire. In 33 

other states there is a separate fee of USD $0.50 to USD $1.00 charged to the consumer by 

the state to fund tire landfill abatement operations or pay for other state programs such as 

municipal transportation. The consumer pays this tax when they buy new tires. The 

remaining states either do not have a tire landfill abatement program or use general fund 

allocation (retail tax, municipal tax) money to pay for any tire landfill abatement. 

In some states, like Virginia, a portion of that money is used as a subsidy to end users who 

utilize the scrap and shredded rubber for recycling, civil engineering, or tire-derived fuel. In 

Virginia, as a result of the state provided end-user reimbursement, the state can track almost 

all of the used tires and haulers. Virginia generates approximately 7 million used tires 

annually that are processed at 10 facilities. No tires are land filled making it a very successful 

program.272 In some states, none of the money is used for tire management programs. 

There is no Canada-wide regulation mandating scrap tire recovery/recycling. That 

responsibility is left to the Provinces and Territories on a voluntary basis. So far, nine 

Provinces and one Territorial Government operate centrally coordinated scrap tire recycling 

programs. Financial support for each of these systems is based on a levy, or environmental 

fee, charged on new tire purchases in the jurisdiction concerned. Levies across the country 

for passenger tires presently range from CDN $2.00 to $5.00, while sales of larger truck tires 

may involve a higher fee, based on rim size. Provinces utilize the multi-stakeholder 

'Stewardship Boards' that are represented by industry and other non-governmental 

stakeholders to carry the central program responsibility. For instance, in Saskatchewan, 

which uses stewardship model, industry and the consumer derive benefit and utility from the 

sale and the use of the product. They have the responsibility to fund the recycling or proper 

disposal of the product at the end of its useful life. There is a Tire Recycling Fee (TRF), often 

called an environmental handling charge, that is collected by the first seller and remitted 

directly to the industry-sponsored, not-for-profit, non-governmental agency responsible for 

the day-to-day operation of the product management program. None of the TRF enters the 

Government’s general revenue stream. The TRF is not a tax imposed by the government, it is 

the disposal fee assessed and implemented by the tire retail industry and other stakeholders. 

As such, all money collected goes towards the recycling of the tire. Saskatchewan has over 

an 80 percent recycle rate of the annual sale of tires. 

In Saskatchewan, there are two crumbing plants and four processing facilities that make 

products out of recycled tires, such as astro-turf for athletic stadiums and playground crumb 

turf (an alternative for sand in play structures). There are molded products such as mats, 

shingles, car ramps and patio bricks. One facility makes bobcat tires out of stamped pieces of 

 

272 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, December 2005. 
Technology Administration 

136 Recycling Technology Products

side walls of agricultural tires and one facility makes safety mats and clothing (belts) and 

swings. Overall, less than 15 percent of the scrap tires collected through Canada's existing 

programs is now shipped for burning as Tire-Derived Fuel. 

U.S. Carpet Recovery Program 

(Producer responsibility with CI or PCI) 

According to industry, approximately 4.7 billion pounds of carpet was discarded in 2002, of 

which 96 percent ended up in U.S. municipal landfills - accounting for 2 percent of landfill 

volume. Less than 4 percent were recycled. The bulky nature of carpets, variety of materials, 

and the economics of collection, handling and recycling are cited as common deterrents to 

recycling. 

In January 2002, carpet and fiber manufactures, state governments, the EPA, and nongovernmental organizations signed a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for 

Carpet Stewardship known as the National Carpet Recycling Agreement.273 This agreement 

established a 10-year target to divert 40 percent of discarded carpet from landfills by 2012. 

The agreement asks manufactures to take primary financial responsibility for achieving these 

diversion rates. The carpet industry created a third-party organization called the Carpet 

America Recovery Effort (CARE) to monitor, evaluate and assess progress toward the 

negotiated outcome goals. The agreement is a voluntary agreement of product stewardship to 

include collection infrastructure, recycling opportunities, program assessment and national 

funding. 

At this time, CARE is based on voluntary industry contributions. In addition to annual 

reports, CARE will provide a progress report toward meeting the year three management 

goal in 2005. In 2007 CARE will commission a study to evaluate progress and barriers to 

achieving the negotiated outcomes, by 2010 create a multi-stakeholder processes for 

developing recommendations and goals for the next 10 years, and by 2012 issue a final 

report. 

Nylon 6 and 6,6 account for almost 60 percent of all carpet face fibers with polypropylene 

(olefin) and polyester making up most of the rest. The face fiber is the most valuable part of 

the carpet for recycling, but it must be identified and separated based on face fiber type. 

Polyester and olefin are not economical to recycle, in part because the virgin materials are so 

cheap.274 Carpet backing is predominately latex and polyvinylchloride (PVC). PVC backed 

carpets are easier to recycle today but are also more expensive and are used primarily in 

commercial settings. Most residential carpet is latex backed. Carpet weighs approximately 4-

5 pounds per square yard and costs US $0.05-0.25 a pound to recycle.275 Recycling is low 

due to the high cost of collection, transportation, and the cost of the technology. In addition, 

 

273 Memorandum of Understanding for Carpet Stewardship can be found at 

http://carpetrecovery.org/about/mou.asp. 

274 Fishbein, Bette K., Carpet Take-Back: EPR American Style, Environmental Quality Management, pp. 25-36, 

Volume 10, No. 1, Autumn 2000, reprinted by INFORM, Inc., www.informinc.org/carpettakeback.php. 

275 CARE, carpetrecovery.org/about/FAQs.asp, (November 8, 2004). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 137

industry has not found products that can cost effectively be produced for the combined costs 

of collection, sorting, and de-polymerizing used carpets at a time when landfill rates range 

between US $0.03-0.06 a pound depending on location. 

Companies such as Collins & Aikman, Honeywell, BASF, Dupont, Interface, and Solutia 

(Monsanto) have recycling efforts. Collins & Aikman’s is profitable. A couple of high profile 

centers have filed for bankruptcy. In 1999, Evergreen Nylon Recycling, a joint venture 

between Honeywell and Dutch State Mines, invested US $120 million to design and 

construct a plant in Georgia to de-polymerize and reuse 200 million pounds of used nylon in 

their new carpets. They believed this would save 700,000 barrels of oil and reduce green 

house emissions by 67 percent. It was envisioned that by 2002 they would have 150 suppliers 

in 120 metropolitan areas up from 40 suppliers in 33 metropolitan areas in 1998. However, 

many of the suppliers, according to CARE, were small, ad-hoc collection systems that did 

not result in substantial quantities of used carpets consistently coming to the center. The 

center shut down in late 2001. In 2000, the German company, BASF, spent US $200 million 

dollars to build an integrated center where Nylon 6 and Nylon 6.6 were de-polymerized to be 

reused. However, citing similar high costs of collection and transport and lack of cost 

efficient end use of their products, the center filed for bankruptcy in 2003. Dupont, the 

largest U.S. carpet manufacturer initiated the Carpet Reclamation Program in 1991 for its 

dealers, mills, designers, and end users. The 80 Dupont dealers collect old carpet at time of 

new installation and pay a fee, which is passed onto the consumer, based on land-filling costs 

to keep the recycling program running. On average, the 80 U.S. dealers collect 10,000 tons of 

carpet per year. The material is stock piled or sold to bulk dealers who recycle it into 

palletized resins for use in the automotive industry, use as in flooring tiles, or made into fiber 

in padding and sports turf or as a coal substitute. 

Demand for products made with recycled content carpet is beginning to develop. Carpet 

manufacturers are recycling old carpets into the structured backing of new modular and new 

performance broadloom carpets. For that reason, EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability in 

the Federal Register regarding the proposed addition of nylon carpet to the Comprehensive 

Procurement Guidelines (CPG) based on information that carpet manufacturers provided.276

Market solutions, however, are still in their infancy. 

According to CARE, the hierarchy for used carpets ranges from land-filling at the bottom to 

de-polymerizing and reusing the monomers as raw ingredients for new carpets at the top of 

the hierarchy. At this time, many in the industry believe the most effective use of old carpets 

is as an energy source. Carpets have similar BTU ranges as coal, has no mercury effluent as 

does coal, emits a narrower range of contaminants than coal, and because carpets contain 

calcium carbonate, this can be recovered for use in the cement industry. There is, however, a 

greater release of greenhouse gases when carpets are incinerated for energy recovery. EPA, 

while recognizing a place for energy recovery from carpets, wants to work toward diversion 

strategies enumerated in the MOU such as reuse and recycling. According to CARE, there 

are proprietary studies and innovations under way by industry leaders and a few 

 

276 See http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/pdf/rman4noda.pdf. 
Technology Administration 

138 Recycling Technology Products

entrepreneurs to find new uses for used carpet. The largest use of recycled carpet at this time 

is in the manufacturing of carpet cushions and for the automotive parts plastic molding 

industry. 

While CARE has not met its interim goals to date, the carpet industry believes that it is on 

track to meet its overall goal of 40% diversion from landfills by 2012. That goal, according 

to the industry, will not necessarily be achieved through a linear ramp-up due to the 

momentum of market forces. Government MOU signatories are concerned that more needs to 

be done if the industry is to meet its expectations in ramping up reuse and recycling by 2012. 

CARE does not support a mandate for recycling because the important ingredient to a 

successful program is still not in place, i.e. a post end-use product made from recycled 

carpets. Instead, CARE offered that mandates for products with re-cycled carpets would 

drive efficiency in collection and recovery. 

CARE faces the following challenges to meet the outcomes of the Carpet Stewardship MOU: 

carpet costs between US $0.02-0.19 more per pound to recycle than to send to a landfill; 

there is no current demand for products made from recycled carpet given present costs; there 

is no infrastructure in place for collection and no financial incentive to collect; collection and 

transportation costs to recycling centers are very high given the bulky nature of carpet; and 

market forces cannot remedy these barriers without financial incentives. As long as 

landfilling is cheaper than recycling, most consumers and carpet manufactures may opt to 

landfill. Market forces alone are not going to incent recycling. 

Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Program277

(Industry-managed deposits/refund plus ARF) 

The Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Program is an example of a deposit/return system 

with an advanced recycling fee (ARF), regulated by the government and administered by the 

industry under provincial regulation. It has an 80 percent recovery rate. Beverage containers 

are high volume, easily separated with low disposal cost and have a high reusability life span. 

Since 1992, the industry has voluntarily standardized beer bottles across Canada allowing 

interchangeability among brewers to the level of 90 percent. Each province has different 

regulations and infrastructure that affect stewardship, but consumers across Canada pay a 

bottle deposit. 

Alberta’s program began in 1972. It is regulated under the Environment Protection and 

Enhancement Act and the Alberta Regulation 101/97 or Beverage Container Recycling 

Regulation. It includes any ready-to-drink beverage, but not milk containers or unsealed 

plastic or paper cups. The object is to collect and recycle beverage containers that have been 

sold and distributed within the province. While there are no mandated recovery rates for 

containers, Albertans return almost 80 percent of all containers as a result of the deposit 

system. The funding for the program comes from revenues selling promotional material and 

from unredeemed refunds. 

 

277 More information on this is available at www.abcrc.com. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 139

The Beverage Container Management Board (BCMB), made up of industry and provincial 

government representatives, administers the program through industry. The Alberta Beverage 

Container Recycling Corporation for non-beer products and the Alberta Beer Container 

Corporation for beer products are the two "Collection System Agents" (CSA) responsible for 

ensuring containers are collected, transported, processed, and recycled on behalf of their 

producers or brand-owners, and then reporting sales data to the BCMB. The collected 

containers are returned to such organizations as Alcan for the aluminum, Merlin Plastics for 

the plastic type materials, etc. During 2001, the average recovery rate by material excluding 

milk products and beer containers was 74.5 percent: 81 percent for aluminum cans, 70 

percent for plastic and 76 percent for glass. Including beer, the overall recovery rate for all 

containers was approximately 80 percent, (88.1 percent for aluminum and 94.9 percent for 

glass). 

In Alberta, retailers collect deposits from the consumer, which range from CDN $0.05 to 

0.20 depending on container size, and the consumer receives a refund for the full amount 

when he returns the container. Since September 15, 2002, the consumer also pays a 

"Container Recycling Fee" (CRF), which is not refunded. The value of the CRF varies from 

CDN $0.01 for an aluminum can to CDN $0.08 for a glass container greater than 1 litre in 

size. The CRF is essentially the cost of recycling the particular container above and beyond 

the salvage value. 

In essence, the manufacturers, at the time of sale of the product, pay the CSA the deposit 

amount as well as the CRF. Out of this amount, the CSA reimburses the collection depots a 

"handling fee" for the container which varies from CDN $0.028 for an aluminum soft drink 

container to CDN $0.08 based on ease of handling, square footage taken up in the depot, 

volume of containers, etc. Unredeemed refunds, which are refunds not paid back to the 

consumer because containers are not returned, goes into advertising the promotion of 

container returns. Depot operators pay a fee (CND $0.00045) per unit recovered to the 

BCMB for each unit covered to oversee the program. For British Columbia and 

Saskatchewan it is quite similar. Alberta and British Columbia are industry models whereas 

Saskatchewan is run by the government utilizing the depot system to help handicapped 

people. 

Manitoba and Ontario have “blue box” (household recycling box for glass, papers, plastics, 

etc.) programs should a consumer not want to return his containers for a refund. Quebec has a 

return to retail program. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and 

Newfoundland have "half back programs" through their depot systems where the consumer 

gets half of their money back. The Northwest Territories is just starting a program similar to 

that of Alberta. 
Technology Administration 

140 Recycling Technology Products

Alberta Used Oil Recovery Recycling Management Program278 

(Industry-managed deposit/refund fee to first sellers, not to consumer) 

In the 1980’s, the Canadian Minister of Environment in conjunction with the Canadian 

Petroleum Products Institute and stakeholders in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and 

Manitoba worked with oil producers to discern how to collect used oil. Together, they 

created the Alberta Used Oil Recycling Program. It initially started as a three year pilot 

program between the parties to recover used oil containers, oil filters and used oil to provide 

the recycling industry with raw materials to be recycled into usable oils, lubes, plastics, and 

steel. It evolved into law in 1997 with two laws: Lubricating Oil Material Recycling and 

Management Regulation Act and the Lubricating Oil Material Recycling and Management 

By-law Regulation. Under this program, an Environmental Handling Charge (EHC) is 

charged to the first sellers of oil and filters to refund the recovery process for the collectors of 

the three waste materials. The EHC can be absorbed by the first seller, but is typically passed 

to the consumer at the point of purchase. 

First sellers279 must be members of the Alberta Used Oil Management Association (AUOM). 

The AUOM is responsible for developing the program to collect and manage used oil, oil 

containers, and oil filters from consumers. It is also responsible for recording and measuring 

the amount of used oil filters and containers and reporting that to the Ministry of 

Environment. 

First sellers remit the total EHC to the AUOM, who in turn, pays return incentive fees to the 

collectors from the private sector. The first seller has no requirement to absorb the cost and 

many pass the cost to the distributor, retailer and finally the consumer via inclusion in the 

product price or a separate line item. Consumers do not recoup the EHC from disposal 

centers. Return incentives range from CDN $0.08-0.17 per liter of oil collected, CDN $0.68 - 

$1.19 per kg of filters collected and CDN $0.87 to $1.10 per kg of plastic containers. The 

EHC for oil is CDN $0.05 per liter of oil, CDN $0.05 per 1 liter container and CDN $0.50 to 

$1.00 per filter. 

During 2000-2001, the Alberta Used Oil Management received approximately CDN $12.3 

million dollars and recovered 67 percent of used oil, 78 percent of used oil filters and 38 

percent of plastic oil containers. This program receives no public funding. The used oil 

collected supports Canada’s two refining businesses and has created new recycling 

opportunities for plastic recycling companies. As a result of this program, less oil, oil 

containers, and filters are being disposed of in municipal landfills, thus reducing the cost to 

the taxpayer. 

 

278 Alberta Used Oil Recycling Management Program, http://www.usedoilrecycling.com/index.cfm, (November 

4, 2004). 

279 First sellers can be manufacturer, marketer, wholesaler, retail distributor or importer. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 141

Paint Stewardship Program in British Columbia: Product Care280

(Industry-managed ARF or PCI) 

Product Care is an example of an industry response to product stewardship regulations, or 

extended producer responsibility regulations, enacted in British Columbia, Canada in 1994 

following regulatory mandate of the Waste Management Act. Under these regulations “brand 

owners”281 of the regulated products must provide a way for consumers to dispose of their 

leftover paints, varnishes, stains, and aerosols for home and commercial use, and then was 

extended to include the disposal of flammable liquids, pesticide, and gasoline in an 

environmentally responsible manner. Thematically, the manufacturers are responsible for 

developing the collection, disposal, and financing systems for collection and re-use. They can 

either internalize the cost or charge an ARF. Product Care is a non-profit association, 

sponsored by the industry and represents 60 brand owners, acting as a third party 

organization (TPO) to manage and finance the program. It partners with local governments, 

private industry, and nonprofit groups to operate over 104 collection depots for consumers 

and pays for the management of the disposed products. 

The program is funded by an “eco-fee” paid by the consumer at the point of purchase. 

However, the manufacturer has the choice to absorb the eco-fee into the price of the product 

or show the eco-fee separately to the consumer. The eco-fee is collected at the point of 

purchase along with provincial and national taxes, but it is remitted to Product Care and not 

to the government. The eco-fee is considered to be part of the price of the product and 

therefore is taxed along with the rest of the product price. For paints, eco-fees range from 

CDN $0.10 for containers of 250 ml or less to CDN $1.00 for containers of 5.0-23 liters. 

Eco-fees rates vary depending on products. There is no drop-off charge to consumers at the 

depots. Collectors may be compensated by Product Care for providing collection services at a 

rate negotiated by both parties. Product Care funds the transportation and product disposal. 

Product Care evolved through a series of amalgamations. The process began in 1994 when 

British Columbia (BC) Paint Care Association was formed to manage leftover consumer 

paint in response to BC's Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Program Regulation. After a 

similar Post-Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation was enacted in 1997, two 

other stewardship associations were formed to manage flammable liquids, pesticides, and 

gasoline. BC Solvent Care Association (SCA) managed paint-related solvents, and the 

Consumer Product Care Association (CP Care) managed pesticides, gasoline, and the solvent 

from non-paint brand owners. By 2001, these associations had merged into Product Care, 

which is now responsible for the environmental stewardship of consumer paint, flammable 

liquids, pesticides, and gasoline in British Columbia. 

 

280 Product Care, http://www.productcare.org/index.html and Northwest Product Stewardship Council 

Policymakers’ Bulletin, Volume 3, Issue 2, September 2004. 

281 Brandowner is defined as the producer or distributor and include the responsibility to collect eco-fees from 

retailers, develop educational materials, and ensure collection and management of used paint from consumer 

through collections sites. 
Technology Administration 

142 Recycling Technology Products

In 2000, Product Care reported 4,000,000 liter containers collected: 78 percent were recycled 

as raw material in the production of new industrial goods as roofing material, concrete 

products, and caulking, and 11 percent was re-used as free product to non-profit groups. 

Additionally, 437 tons of scrap steel and 30 tons of scrap plastic were recycled. 

Approximately 3 percent of paint was incinerated and 8 percent used as energy recovery in 

cement kilns. Since it’s inception in 1994, there has been an increase in the recycling and reuse of paint materials every year. In addition, consumers, through the educational materials 

of Product Care, are becoming more knowledgeable of how to buy and use paint more 

efficiently to eliminate waste. Each year, Product Care must provide the Ministry of Water, 

Land and Air an annual report on behalf of the brandowner to include the amount of paint 

sold and recovered; educational efforts; processes to treat, recover or reuse paint, and 

financial statements. 

Quebec Used Paint Program: Eco-Peinture 

(Industry-managed ARF, government set recovery targets) 

In 1997, members of the Quebec Paint Industry of brand-owners282 and/or first-importers 

voluntarily formed Eco-Peinture, a program to undertake the responsibility of ensuring the 

recovery of post consumer paint and containers. In 2000, Quebec Regulation 655-2000, 

“Regulation Respecting the Recovery and Reclamation of Discarded Paint Containers and 

Paints” under the Quebec Environment Quality Act was passed. This Act covers paints sold 

in retail outlets to include stains, primers, varnishes, lacquers wood or masonry treatment 

products and other mixtures designed for maintenance, protection or decoration. It does not 

cover paints used by artists. It set recovery targets of 25 percent by 2002; 50 percent by 2005; 

and 75 percent by 2008. The recovery rate, or amount estimated to be available for recycling 

and reuse is estimated to be 7 percent of the total volume of paint sold. 

Industry then asked that the Province regulate its program of paint collection and recycling 

program through a Memorandum of Understanding in an effort to have provincial oversight 

through one industry focal point, Eco-Peinture283. As a result, Eco-Peinture provides on a 

yearly basis to the Provincial Government an annual report that includes the amount of paints 

and containers recovered, reclaimed, and eliminated as compared to the yearly sale of all 

paint containers by the brand-owners or first-importers. 

Utilizing ”polluter-pays” concept, the program run by industry is funded by a mandated flat 

fee paid by the consumer of CDN $0.25 for any container sold in Quebec, which pays for the 

whole program from retailers, transportation, to processing plants. Brand-owners or first 

importers join the membership rolls of Eco-Peinture, which acts a third part organization to 

take on the responsibility for recovery of post-consumer paint and containers, informing the 

collection points, informing the public, and finding ways to reclaim the paint through reusing 

or recycling. Since the program does not pay for pick-up of paints, consumers can either 

 

282 Brand owner is defined as the producer or distributor and include the responsibility to collect eco-fees from 

first importers, develop educational materials, and ensure collection and management of used paint from 

consumer through collections sites. 

283 See www.ecopeinture.ca, (November 22, 2004). 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 143

bring the paint back to the retailers, which is then picked up through Eco-Peinture 

infrastructure, or the municipality pays for and utilizes its own household hazardous waste 

collection infrastructure, which includes paints, from neighborhoods and the transportation to 

the processing plant. About 30 percent of the paint and containers are collected by retailers 

and 70 percent by the municipality. 

Between April and September of 2001, the program recovered 1.7 million kilograms (3.74 

million pounds) of paint and containers. Approximately 64 percent of the material went back 

to the paint industry to be recycled or reused. Approximately 20 percent of the total weight 

represented the containers, which was recycled. Approximately 16 percent of the material 

was unusable and sent to the landfill. Peintures Récupérées du Québec (the re-processing 

plant) is a subsidiary of Société Laurentide, a paint manufacturer located in Shawinigan. The 

re-processed paint is then put back on the market and marketed as recycled paint under the 

name of "Boomerang". The metal and the plastic from the old cans are sold on the recycled 

steel or plastic markets by Peintures Récupérées. According to Eco-Peinture, Quebec has met 

its target for 2002 and will meet the 50 percent target, at least for paint in 2005. 

European Union’s End-of-Life Vehicles Directive 

(Producer responsibility with government set targets) 

The number of cars scrapped in the EU is expected to surpass 17 million by 2015. 

Approximately 75 percent of the weight of a car is made up of steel and aluminum, but it also 

contains a wide variety of other metal materials such as, lead, mercury, cadmium and 

hexavalent chromium. In addition, a car has other substances such as liquids, plastics, antifreeze, brake fluid and oils that, if not properly managed, may cause significant 

environmental pollution. Many of these are recoverable and recyclable. 

As a result of this growing number of scrapped cars and the differing disposal methods by 

Member States of cars, the EU was striving for harmonization. The EU introduced a 

Directive on end-of-life vehicles (2000/53/EC), which had an implementation date of April 

2002, and aims to improve recovery, reuse, and recycling of cars, to minimize the final 

disposal of the increasing number of scrapped cars. 

The EU approach to the ELV284 Directive 2000/53/EC is avoiding waste by improving 

design and increasing the recycling and reuse of waste, by obligating vehicle manufactures 

and equipment manufacturers to produce vehicles that can be easily dismantled and 

increasing use of recycled parts. It also seeks standardizing component and material coding 

standards to facilitate the identification of materials for reuse and recovery, as well as 

curtailing the use of components that use mercury, hexavalent chromium, cadmium and lead 

(excepted those listed in Annex III) by July 2003. The Directive introduces provisions for the 

Member States to develop systems for the collection and transportation of ELVs, waste, and 

used parts from vehicle repair centers to authorized treatment facilities at no cost to the last 

owner. Producers are required to meet all or a significant part of these costs. Additionally, a 

system is developed whereby a Certificate of Destruction is issued to a last owner as a 

 

284 End-of-Life Vehicle is any type of vehicle which is waste within the meaning of Directive 75/442/EEC. 
Technology Administration 

144 Recycling Technology Products

condition for de-registering and ELV when it is taken to the authorized treatment facility. 

Member States must in accordance with European Control, Directive 75/442/EEC and Annex 

1 of 2000/53/EC ensures that that treatment facility for recycling, recovery/reuse, and storage 

for the handling of recoverable parts are met. Progressive targets for total recovery have been 

set at 85 percent by average weight by 2006 and 95 percent average weight by 2015. 
Office of Technology Policy 

An Overview of E-Waste Policy Issues 145

APPENDIX VII 

E-WASTE ACRONYMS 

ADF advance disposal (recycling) fee 

ARF advance recovery fee 

BOE California Board of Equalization 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CESQG conditionally exempt small quantity generators 

CI cost internalization 

CIP or COI collection incentive payment 

CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board 

CPU central processing unit of a computer 

CRT cathode ray tube found in televisions and computer monitors 

DfE design for environment changes 

DfR design for recycling 

DTSC California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control 

EOL end of life fee 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPEAT Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool 

EPR extended producer responsibility 

ESM environmentally sound management 

EU European Union 

FEC Federal Electronics Challenge 

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 

ICT information and communications technologies 

LCD liquid crystal display 

LRAs Local Regional Authorities 

NEPSI National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative 

NVMP Netherlands Association for Disposal of "Metalectro" Products 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

OTP Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce 

PCI partial cost internalization 

READ Recycling Electronics and Asset Disposition 

RBRC Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RoHS European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive 

SWICO Swiss Association for Information, Communications and Organization 

Technology 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

TPO third party organization 

WEEE European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive