To: Technology Administration, Department of Commerce
RE: Request for Comments on Electronics Recycling

The Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on "Technology Recycling: Achieving Consensus for Stakeholders".

NERC is a non-profit organization that focuses its efforts in the 10 northeast states ¹. Our mission emphasizes environmental and economic sustainability through recycling, source reduction, and decreased toxicity in the solid waste stream. As a stakeholder in the National Electronics Product Initiative (NEPSI) and as an entity with a great deal of practical and research experience in the collection of electronics from consumers for recycling and reuse, we offer the following comments in response to the Technology Administration's specific requests for guidance:

¹ CT, DE, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT

(1) Definition of covered products.
The products should include:

• Televisions and their peripherals (including VCRs, DVDs, satellite boxes, etc.)
• Personal computers and their peripherals (including the CPU, flat screen and CRT monitors, all essential devices such as mice, modems, keyboards, etc.)
• Laptops
• Printers
• Fax machines
• Cellular phones
• PDAs
• Pagers

These are the most common devices generated by households that require appropriate management, and which individuals bring to electronics collection programs. In other words, they are what the public thinks electronics recycling means and expects.

 

We encourage the Department of Commerce to include small businesses, schools, institutions, organizations within the scope of the entities to whom a national system will apply. Unlike large companies, there are no readily available recycling options available and these entities are the most in need of support and education about the proper end of life management of these products.

 

While we agree with the Roundtable comments that the list of products should expand over time, we disagree with the statement that "a list of products for recycling should be limited to a small number of items to start with, such as cathode ray tubes and flat panel monitors over a certain size". The reality of electronics recycling collections is that the public expects and needs access for the full range of common consumer electronic devices that need disposal. Limiting the list to just the CRT, for example, would be essentially impossible to enforce at the point of collection and would result in anger and frustration and a loss of support for the program.

(2) Collection and the role of government in collection
We strongly disagree with the Roundtable comment that "A collection process may include but should not mandate participation from retailers, local governments, manufacturers and third parties." A voluntary system is what exists now. If there is to be an effective national effort it must be mandatory and coordinated.

We recommend the following as the appropriate role of government in collection:

• Assist in providing education and promotion to the public of the issue, the new system and available opportunities.
• Assist in system and infrastructure design.
• Assist in recordkeeping.
• Provide collection sites and services, but not necessarily bear the financial burden for such.
• We do not believe, however, that government collection should be the only collection opportunities. Retailers, recyclers and manufacturers should also provide collection options within the national system.

(3) Financing collection, transportation and recycling, financing for orphan products, financing historical products versus future products, and the role of government, the electronics industry, and intermediaries in financing

We offer the following recommendations:

Financing

• There should be a front-end financing mechanism (also known as an advanced recovery fee (ARF)) collected at the point of sale.
• This fee should be adequate to fully cover a base level of nationally available service that includes collection, transportation and processing costs of all products: historic, orphan, and current.
• The money should go into a protected public trust fund and not a government account where it could be potentially be raided for other purposes.
• We do not believe that a separate financing system should be developed for orphan and historic products. While in an ideal world such a system would be developed and implemented we do not support pursuing this complex and contentious strategy. It will add delay, complexity and cost to a system that needs to be easy to implement and cost effective.

Infrastructure

• The overall system should be managed by a quasi-public or private Third Party Organization and should not be managed by a Federal agency.
• Those providing collection should receive a "collection incentive payment" to encourage a diversity of entities, who meet certain standards, to provide collection services to customers.
• The payment of the collection incentive should be available to any collector that meets certain standards, including charities, private recycling businesses, retailers, manufacturers, and government programs.

Role of government, the electronics industry, and intermediaries in financing

• Government: the cost of its activities related to education, support of a national system, enforcement and administration should be borne by government (the tax payer).
• Electronics industry: Should be providing education about end of life management and offering take-back and recycling of its own products at no direct cost to the consumer.
• Retailers: Should be providing education about end of life management options and access to recycling and collection options at no direct cost to the consumer.

(4) The role of the federal government in creating a national recycling plan

• We strongly support the Roundtable position that there needs to be a national approach as opposed to a state-by-state approach. The implementation of the recommendations articulated above will require national legislation, oversight, and a strong and coordinated education program.
• There is a need for a federal ban on the disposal of CRTs in the solid waste stream that includes individuals and small businesses. This could be done through a regulatory change to RCRA.
• It is essential that a fully developed collection and processing infrastructure is in place before the ban takes effect. Taking a close look at the model strategy developed and implemented by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be instructive.
• It is also essential that the processing of materials be done in accordance with rigorous environmental management standards; such as those developed by EPA through its Plug Into eCycling Program.

Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Lynn Rubinstein
Executive Director