State regulators are considering various “legislative fixes” to its e-scrap program, which is the longest-running in the United States.
E-Scrap News reports that various possible fixes are being studied by regulators, including “expanding the existing consumer-funded model or going with a more commonly used system financed by OEMs.”
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) held a workshop earlier this month where it announced that the time had come to “explore solutions”.
“We have a need to consider whether the current approaches to e-waste management are going to be sufficient in the future,” Howard Levenson, CalRecycle’s Deputy Director of Materials Management and Local Assistance, said during the workshop.
Since its launch back in 2003, when California became the first state to introduce a formal electronics recycling scheme, the program has recycled 2.2 billion pounds of electronic waste. However, Levenson said it had been “hit hard” by changes in the “recycling landscape”.
“We have a lot of challenges,” he said.
During the workshop, which ran for three hours, attendees discussed “the potential merits and pitfalls of an enhanced-fee-and-payment model versus a full-blown product stewardship model.”
With the former option, the list of electronics the program covers could be expanded to potentially include “printers, scanners, e-readers, small and large appliances and even solar panels” and consumers would still “directly shoulder the costs” by paying a fee upon purchasing electronics.
Walter Alcorn, CTA’s Vice President of Environmental Affairs and Industry Sustainability, told E-Scrap News that “his members are in favor of sticking with the consumer fee approach in California.”
“CTA supports the California program and encourages its continued stability with minimal changes and only where necessary,” Alcorn commented.
Similarly, Mark Murray, Executive Director of Californians Against Waste (CAW), also told E-Scrap News that he believes the best way forward is by adjusting the current model.
“The issue on the table is not how to fiddle with the policies that are working, but rather what to do with the thousands of tons of other increasingly ‘disposable’ electronic devices – many of them toxic – that are accumulating in homes and businesses or being improperly disposed,” Murray said.
However, the second option discussed at the workshop – using the producer stewardship model – is a procedure “used by the vast majority of state-run programs in the country”.
“I don’t really want to put the burden on the OEMs, but it’s the only way to get out of the issue of the state having the money,” said Ken Taggert, Executive Vice President of ECS, noting that “it would remain important for the state to oversee recycling company registrations and certifications.”
The President of Onsite Electronics Recycling, Janice Oldemeyer, said, “Some of the manufacturer programs are squeezing the recyclers too much,” and added, ““The state needs to be involved in the management of material and [ensure] that the recyclers are being paid an appropriate amount for the material.”
Whichever approach is used, whether the current model or the producer stewardship model, “state officials made it clear it would require a legislative fix, not a regulatory one.”
“In general, we’ve heard more support for maintaining the current system. …That’s been fairly consistent,” Levenson said, concluding, “This is a gnarly question because the California system is different from every other system in the country.”