Home Page
Acknowledgment
Executive Summary

Background
  Nevada Assembly Bill 426
  Definition of E-Waste
  Concerns and Hazards
  Federal E-Waste Regulations

Nevada's Voluntary System
  Overview
  Current Infrastructure
  Drop-off Locations
  Special Collection Events
  Take-back Programs

Legislation in Other States
State Mandatory Programs
  California - ARF Program
  Oregon - PR Program
  Maryland - PR Program
  State Voluntary Systems
  State E-Waste Landfill Bans

Recommendation
  No Legislation - Continue
  Existing Voluntary System

Appendices
  Tables of Available Services
  Map of Services in Nevada
  Assembly Bill 426

Legislation in Other States

As of June 2010, 27 states manage their e-waste reuse and recycling under voluntary systems, while the remaining 23 have established mandatory programs. As in Nevada, these voluntary systems make use of local drop-off locations, special collection events, and by taking advantage of manufacturer take-backs to maximize reuse and recycling. Mandatory state programs vary widely, both in the types of electronic devices that are covered and the means by which their programs are funded. California was the first to enact legislation in 2003 establishing a mandatory system for the collection and recycling of certain e-wastes. Since then, 22 additional states have followed suit. State programs typically focus on video display devices because they pose the highest potential risk to the environment and human health.

Two types of mandatory programs have been adopted: Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF) programs, or Producer Responsibility (PR) programs. Under an ARF program, consumers pay a fee at the point of purchase to cover the collection and recycling of e-waste. This program is labor intensive and very costly (See Section 3.1.1 for more detail). California is currently the only state that has adopted an ARF program. Under a PR program, the manufacturer either takes back, or reimburses recyclers for a portion of the cost of collecting and recycling their products, either directly or through a state administered fund. PR program reimbursement structures vary from state-to-state, with some based on tonnage and others on the number of units collected. The amount paid by manufacturers to the regulatory agency can be based either on a manufacturer's share of last year's market sales, on the percentage of e-waste collected bearing their brand, an annual fee, or a combination of these.

PR programs require manufacturers to register with a state, and, in most programs, pay an annual fee to be able to market their products in those states. While this might sound straightforward, PR programs have several drawbacks. Obtaining registration information and collecting fees from international companies has proven to be difficult and time-consuming. Most states are insufficiently staffed to enforce manufacturer registration. Even the term "manufacturer" has proven to be an obstacle to program funding as some claim they are "brand owners," not manufacturers, by definition, and refuse to pay the fee.

Programs based on return-share require additional tracking efforts by collectors and recyclers, as well as enforcement by public agencies. Using market-share to set a program's funding structure requires the purchase of a national market-share report each year from market research firms. These reports are estimated to cost up to $20,000 depending on the amount of data and level of detail requested in the report.

State Mandatory Programs
State mandatory programs were examined nationwide and three state programs representing the different approaches being implemented across the country are discussed in detail: California's ARF, the only "consumer fee" law in the country; Oregon's program, one of the more complex PR programs; and a simplified PR program that was adopted in Maryland.




California - ARF Program
California's e-waste program is limited to specific video display devices (4" and larger), and imposes a consumer paid fee ranging from $8-$25 per item purchased. The fee is collected at the retail level, 3% of which the retailer retains. The remainder is deposited into a state-administrated recycling fund. The fund reimburses state approved e-waste collectors and recycling companies and covers the salaries of state and local e-waste program staff. According to the current rate schedule, collectors are paid $0.16/lb by recyclers, and recyclers are paid $0.39/lb by the state. For additional information on California's e-waste program, please click here: CA Electronic Waste Recycling Act.

Evaluation
As a result of this program, additional e-waste is diverted from landfills, conserving landfill space and natural resources. However, because there is no federal ban on the export of e-waste for recycling, much of the e-waste collected under this program is shipped out of the country for recycling and may end up in locations with little or no environmental regulation. Businesses and jobs were created because the increased supply of regulated e-waste created the need for additional collection, resource recovery and reclamation operations, transportation, and other ancillary functions.

The program is funded by fees paid by the consumer for each electronic device purchased. State and local governments required considerable staffing and funding increases to develop, implement and enforce the ARF program. Although retailers receive some compensation (3% of the fees collected) to cover the cost they incur to collect, account for and transmit the funds collected to the State, that compensation is considered by the retailers to be insufficient to cover their costs. Manufacturers are not required to pay registration fees or provide take-back programs for their covered electronic devices in California's ARF program as they are under a typical PR program, they are, however, required to provide the California Integrated Waste Management Board with information annually demonstrating their efforts to: 1) reduce the levels of toxic substances in electronic devices they produce; 2) increase the use of recyclable materials in their products; and, 3) provide outreach programs to consumers ( Public Resource Code Section 42465.2).

Based on discussions with California's ARF program staff, the following table summarizes the pros and cons of their mandatory program:

* Of the total expenditures, 87% is allotted to reimburse collectors and recyclers, the remaining 13% funds State agency administrative and regulatory activities. The number of employees required to operate the ARF is difficult to estimate as there are multiple state and local agencies involved.

Oregon - PR Program
Oregon's PR program is designed to establish and finance convenient collection and recycling programs in each county throughout the state. The program requires manufacturers of desktop computers, laptops, monitors, and TVs to either join a state sponsored take-back program or create a take-back program of their own. Regardless of their choice, all manufacturers pay an annual registration fee based on their market-share of units sold in the previous year. In addition, under the State take-back program, manufacturers pay a recycling fee to participate based on the return-share of their products. A manufacturer that chooses to create an independent plan will pay the state for any shortfall if their plan fails to meet their collection obligation (a pre-determined collection percentage goal). In 2009, the cost of the program to the state was $1.4 million⁸. The assessed fees cover the contractor managing the program, any required information technology for billing and tracking, compliance and enforcement activities, and any legal services required to deal with non-compliance issues. For additional information on Oregon's e-waste program, please click here: Oregon E-Cycles.

Evaluation
As a result of this program, additional e-waste is diverted from landfills, conserving landfill space and natural resources. However, because there is no federal ban on the export of e-waste for recycling, much of the e-waste collected under this program is shipped out of the country for recycling and may end up in locations with little or no environmental regulation. Businesses and jobs were created because the increased supply of regulated e-waste created the need for additional collection, resource recovery and reclamation operations, transportation, and other ancillary functions.

Oregon's "dual plan" PR program requires additional government resources to track sales, verify compliance with collection goals, enforce registration requirements, establish data management systems and manage fees. After initial start-up, the annual registration fee was designed to cover the costs incurred by state and local government agencies. These same registration fees are used to reimburse local recyclers for a percentage of their collection and transportation costs. While there is no fee assessed directly on the consumer, the fees charged to manufacturers are typically passed through to the consumers. Under this program, retailers are required to provide public education and outreach

The follow table summarizes the pros and cons of Oregon's PR program.

Maryland - Simplified PR Program
Maryland adopted one of the nation's simplest PR e-waste laws. Electronics manufacturers are required to pay an initial fee of $10,000, then a renewal fee annually thereafter. The annual renewal fee is $500 if they implement a take-back program, or $5,000 if they don't . Counties and local municipalities are encouraged to establish e-waste collection and recycling programs in their jurisdictions. The state collects the registration fees and maintains a list of manufacturers that are registered and approved. The state in turn grants funds to the counties and municipalities operating e-waste programs. For additional information on Maryland's e-waste program, please click here: e-Cycling in MD.

Evaluation
Although the Maryland program was recently implemented, so it's effectiveness has yet to be determined, it is anticipated that additional e-waste will be diverted from landfills, conserving landfill space and natural resources. However, because there is no federal ban on the export of e-waste for recycling, much of the e-waste collected under this program may be shipped out of the country for recycling and may end up in locations with little or no environmental regulation. Businesses and jobs are expected to be generated because the increased supply of regulated e-waste will create the need for additional collection, resource recovery and reclamation operations, transportation, and other ancillary functions.

Significant resources were needed to initially establish this PR program. However, after the initial startup, the manufacturer's annual registration fees should cover state and local government costs. These same fees will be used to reimburse local recyclers for a percentage of their collection and transportation costs. Although electronics consumers are not directly assessed a fee, the fees paid by manufacturers are typically passed on to the consumers.

* The direct costs reflect funds for reimbursement of counties and municipalities in the form of grants for their e-waste programs. The financial components of the Indirect Costs is difficult to determine; however, assuming that Maryland adheres to standard government accounting practices, such costs are calculated as a percentage of direct costs.

State Voluntary Systems
Like Nevada, our neighboring states, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah operate under voluntary e-waste systems. Although several e-waste bills have been proposed over the years, none have passed legislative review to become law in those states. The lack of legislation in these states is due, in part, to insufficient funding to develop, staff, and implement a mandatory e-waste management system.




State E-Waste Landfill Bans
Another e-waste management alternative that merits consideration is the imposition of a ban on e-waste disposal in landfills. As of June 2010, 13 states (CA, CT, IL, IN, ME, MN, NJ, NY, NC, OR, RI, SC and VT) have passed e-waste landfill disposal bans to maximize e-waste collection and recycling. When considering an e-waste ban, the following must be explored: Will the current commodities market and existing local collection infrastructure be able to handle the additional in-flow of materials, how will the ban be funded, and how and where will the e-waste diverted from the landfill be managed or recycled?

Adopting a landfill ban would increase the amount of e-waste reused and recycled. This increased supply could increase Nevada's current reuse and recycling infrastructure by attracting new recycling businesses. Because many of the recyclers are currently operating at or near maximum capacity in Nevada and it takes time to expand the existing infrastructure and develop new collection programs, a state ban typically requires a 3-5 year phase-in period to allow recycling companies and other key stakeholders adequate time to set up new services or expand existing services.

In states with mandatory PR e-waste programs, landfill bans are typically funded by the electronics manufacturers. Under a voluntary system, the cost of developing and implementing a ban is typically borne by the local government. As is often the case, if additional fees are imposed on residents as a result of a ban or if the ban makes it significantly more difficult to get rid of e-waste, illegal dumping activities increase placing additional burdens on state and local law and code enforcement agencies.

Evaluation
A landfill ban would help to divert tons of e-waste from landfills and would encourage reuse and recycling, reduce potential contamination of the environment and allow for reclamation of valuable components and reuse; it would also require new program to be developed and implemented with fiscal impacts to state and local agencies. Any proposed ban should consider where and how the e-waste being diverted from the landfill will be recycled. Because there is no federal ban on the export of e-waste for recycling, much of the e-waste diverted through such a ban may be collected then shipped out of the country for recycling and may end up being "recycled" in locations with little or no environmental regulation.

Because the majority of reuse and recycling collection services are located in Clark and Washoe Counties, limiting a ban to counties with populations over 100,000 may be appropriate. However, preliminary discussions with county officials indicate a landfill ban may not be in the best interest of all parties concerned.

* The fiscal impacts of a landfill ban would depend on the complexity of the adopted ban, i.e. the variety of materials that are banned, the area covered by the ban (statewide or by county), tracking requirements, level of compliance and enforcement, etc. There will be initial costs to agencies for program development and implementation, and later for compliance and enforcement. A landfill ban will require amendments to operating permits and, in some cases, modifications to franchise agreements.



⁶ The Electronic Takeback Coalition has been collecting data from states with mandatory e-waste recycling programs and has published a recent report of this data.
⁷ Cost estimates for the CA program were received from the CA Department of Resources and Recovery.
⁸ Per telephone conversation with Oregon's E-Cycles program staff.
⁹ The Electronic Takeback Coalition has been collecting data from states with mandatory e-waste recycling programs and has published a recent report of this data.
¹⁰ Cost estimates for the State Operated option were from the Fiscal Note submitted with BDR 40-466(AB426).
¹¹ Cost estimates for the Contractor Operated option were received from Oregon e-Cycles program staff.
¹² Cost estimates received from Maryland's e-Cycling program staff.
¹³ Cost estimates received from Maryland's e-Cycling program staff.

Next Page

Home — Nevada Recycles.gov