1. the U.S. electronics
stewardship movement
and
where massachusetts fits
waneta trabert
product stewardship institute
March 29, 2016
2. 2
EPR law trends in the
U.S. since 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
NumberofLaws
Year
3. EPR laws + bills in the northeast
3
CT MA ME NH NJ NY RI VT
Auto Switches Law Law Law Bill* Law Law
Batteries (Rechargeable) Bill Law Law Law Bill Law
Batteries (Single Use or All)
Bill*
(all batteries)
Bill*
(all batteries)
Bill*
(single use)
Law
(single use)
Carpet Bill Bill
Electronics Law Bill* Law Law Law Law Law
Fluorescent Lamps Law Law Bill* Bill* Law
Mattresses Law Law
Packaging
Bill*
(study)
Bill* Bill
Paint Law Bill* Law Bill Bill* Bill* Law Law
Pharmaceuticals Law Bill Bill Bill Bill*
Thermostats Law Law Law Law Law Law Law
Tires Bill* Bill*
* = EPR bill introduced in 2015-2016
other bills introduced 2008-2014 Source: Product Stewardship Institute, 2016
4. 4
Cumulative EPR Policies Worldwide
worldwide
EPR adoption
369
programs
worldwide
24%
of worldwide
programs (90)
in the US as of
2013
2013
Source: OECD, 2013
8. 0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Poundscollectedpercapita
pounds of e-scrap collected per capita by state, 2014
law performance
Note: This chart presents available data on program performance, but does not provide an “apples to
apples” comparison as the covered products and entities (e.g., residents, businesses, schools, etc.)
vary from state to state.
8
Source: ERCC, 2016
*2013 data
13. PSI’s electronics work
• spoke with officials to better understand what
creates stable programs
• developed model policy elements document
• working with state product stewardship
councils
• NY and IL
• preliminary work in MA
13
In 2000, there were 8 EPR laws in 7 states (all were older battery laws with some element of producer responsibility - Maryland had one law for mercuric oxide button cell batteries and one law for rechargables)
90 EPR laws in the U.S.
Note: This chart presents available data on program performance, but does not provide an “apples to apples” comparison as the covered products and covered entities (e.g., residents, businesses, schools, etc.) vary from state to state.
Increase in E-Scrap recycled
Waste reduction
Toxins properly managed
Expansion of collection networks, including retail take-back
Cost savings to local governments
Performance goals not keeping pace with volumes collected
Manufacturer programs not covering the full cost of recycling – especially CRTs
Recyclers squeezed between two customers needs – manufacturers & local governments
Local governments facing unanticipated and significant costs
Collection networks contracting
neither are ideal
MA is in a great position to learn from other states
convenience standards that ensure year round collection
central coordination structure