BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1523
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Byron D. Sher, Chairman
2001-2002 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1523
AUTHOR: Sher
AMENDED: As introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 22, 2002
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Kip Lipper
SUBJECT : SOLID WASTE: CATHODE RAY TUBES AND
DEVICES: RECYCLING AND REFURBISHMENT
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1)Under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA) and subsequent amendments to the Act, generally
requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to
establish standards and regulation for the management and
disposal of hazardous materials and wastes.
2)Under the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(Division 30 (commencing with Section 40000) of the Public
Resources Code):
a) Requires local agencies to divert, through source
reduction, recycling, and composting, 50% of solid waste
disposed by their jurisdictions by the year 2000.
b) Requires local enforcement agencies (LEA's) for solid
waste (generally cities or counties) to enforce statewide
minimum enforcement standards for solid waste handling
and disposal.
c) Establishes a statewide household hazardous substance
information and collection program within the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), which consists
of public education and local government planning,
assistance and funding though grants administered by the
board, for the purposes of ensuring the proper and safe
disposal of household hazardous substances.
SB 1523
Page 2
d) Establishes a series of special solid waste reduction
and market development programs administered by the CIWMB
for wastes ranging from metallic discards, paper, compost
materials, plastic trash bags, and rigid plastic beverage
containers.
3)Under Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25000) of the
Health and Safety Code, which generally governs the
authority of the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) to regulate hazardous materials and wastes:
a) Requires DTSC to adopt, and revise as appropriate,
standards and regulations for the management of
hazardous wastes for the protection of the public health,
domestic livestock, wildlife, or the environment.
b) Requires DTSC to maintain its hazardous waste disposal
program in a manner which, at minimum, meets the
requirements of the federal RCRA in order to maintain
federal delegation of its program.
4)Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR)
adopted by DTSC pursuant to the statutory authority
described under (3) above:
a) Establishes a "Universal Waste Rule" under which high
volume, relatively low-risk hazardous wastes (e.g.
batteries, florescent lamps, cameras, etc.) are exempted
from standard and more stringent hazardous waste
management rules but are subject to less comprehensive
management and disposal requirements commensurate with
the risks they pose.
b) Requires persons other than households and small
businesses, who generate, handle, collect, transport or
recycle cathode ray tube materials (CRT's), as defined,
to manage those wastes as universal wastes and prohibits
their disposal in solid waste disposal facilities.
This bill :
1) On and after July 1, 2003, requires every retailer that
SB 1523
Page 3
sells CRT devices in the state to collect an unspecified
recycling fee, based upon the screen size of the CRT, to be
forwarded to the CIWMB and deposited into the Cathode Ray
Tube Recycling Account, which his continuously appropriated
for the following purposes:
a) To provide matching grants to local governments to
fund convenient and cost-effective collection and
processing of CRT's;
b) To provide annual recycling incentive payments to CRT
materials handlers who comply with Title 22 CCR, with
priority going to handlers who have obtained
registration pursuant to ISO 14001.
c) To provide grants to non-profit agencies that
refurbish CRT's for reuse.
2) Establishes the CRT Recycling Advisory Committee consisting
of various public, non-profit, and private sector parties
involved in the manufacture, refurbishment, recycling, and
disposal of CRT's for the purposes of advising the CIWMB on
matters pertaining to the expenditures of the account, the
level of the recycling fee, and the removal of impediments
to recovery of CRT's for recycling or reuse.
3) Makes findings and declarations relative to electronic
waste products, defines specified terms used in the bill,
and authorizes the CIWMB to adopt regulations to implement
the bill's provisions.
COMMENTS
1) Purpose of the Bill . According to the author and
supporters of the bill, this measure is intended to ensure
that CRT's, which are a portion of so-called electronic or
"E" waste, are properly collected, recycled, refurbished,
or disposed. The author notes that, in recent months,
E-waste has become a significant environmental hazard and
concern to environmental groups, the press, and the general
public. Yet, state government has no program which
addresses this segment of the waste stream. The purpose of
this measure is to establish a program to promote the
SB 1523
Page 4
efficient and cost-effective collection and processing of
CRT's to ensure that they do not pose a threat to public
health and the environment.
2) Electronic Waste or "E-Waste" and CRT's Defined . According
to information from the CIWMB and DTSC websites: "E-waste
is a popular, informal name for electronic products nearing
the end of their 'useful life.' Computers, televisions,
VCRs, stereos, copiers, and fax machines are common
electronic products. Many of these products can be reused,
refurbished, or recycled. Unfortunately, electronic
discards is one of the fastest growing segments of our
nation's waste stream. In addition, some researchers
estimate that nearly 75 percent of old electronics are in
storage, in part because of the uncertainty over how to
manage the materials. Combine this with increasing advances
in technology and new products headed towards the market
and it is no wonder that "E-waste" is a popular topic."
The term "E-waste" is loosely applied to consumer and business
electronic equipment that is near or at the end of its
useful life. There is no clear definition for E-waste; for
instance, whether or not items like microwave ovens and
other similar "appliances" should be grouped into the
category have not yet been determined. Certain components
of some electronic products contain materials that render
them hazardous, depending on their condition and density.
For instance, California regulation currently views
nonfunctioning CRTs (cathode ray tubes) from televisions
and monitors as hazardous."
CRTs, often called "picture tubes," convert an electronic
signal into a visual image. A typical CRT contains between
two and five pounds of lead. Lead is a toxic substance
which may cause lead poisoning and can be especially
harmful to young children. If products containing lead are
disposed of to the trash, the lead can potentially
contaminate the soil and our water supplies. When tested,
most CRT's exceed the regulatory threshold for lead and are
identified as hazardous waste when discarded. Waste CRTs
are subject to hazardous waste regulations which went into
effect August 3, 2001. The regulations protect the
environment by promoting the safe collection and recycling
SB 1523
Page 5
of waste CRT's. Disposing of CRTs to the trash or to a
municipal landfill is prohibited."
3) New Report Suggests E-Waste Is International Environmental
Concern . It is estimated that, in California alone, up to
6 million CRT's have piled up in attics, basements,
garages, and other storage areas. Given the planned
obsolescence of computers, TV monitors and the like, this
number is expected to increase over time.
According to a new report issued earlier this year by the
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition [ Exporting Harm; The
High-Tech Trashing Of Asia , Puckett et. al.], "Electronic
waste or E-waste is the most rapidly growing waste problem
in the world. It is a crisis not only of quantity but also
a crisis born from toxic ingredients such as the lead,
beryllium, mercury, cadmium, and brominated-flame
retardants that pose both an occupational and environmental
health threat. But to date, industry, government and
consumers have only taken small steps to deal with this
looming problem."
?trade in E-waste is an export of real harm to the poor
communities of Asia. The open burning, acid baths and toxic
dumping pour pollution into the land, air and water and
exposes the men, women and children of Asia's poorer
peoples to poison. The health and economic costs of this
trade are vast and, due to export, are not born by the
western consumers nor the waste brokers who benefit from
the trade."
The report makes the following summary findings:
Millions of pounds of E-waste from obsolete computers and
TVs are being generated in the U.S. each year and large
amounts -- an estimated 50% to 80% collected for recycling
-- are being exported.
This export is due to cheaper labor, lack of environmental
standards in Asia, and because such export is still legal in
the United States.
The E-waste recycling and disposal operations found in
SB 1523
Page 6
China, India, and Pakistan are extremely polluting and
likely to be very damaging to human health. Examples
include open burning of plastic waste, exposure to toxic
solders, river dumping of acids, and widespread general
dumping.
Contrary to all principles of environmental justice, the
United States, rather than banning exports of toxic E-waste
to developing countries, is actually facilitating their
export.
China has banned the import of E-waste and yet the United
States refuses to honor that ban by preventing exports to
them.
Due to a severe lack of responsibility on the part of the
federal government and the electronics industry, consumers,
recyclers and local governments are left with few viable,
sustainable options for E-waste.
1) State Regulatory and Administrative Efforts to Address
Environmental Impacts of E-Waste Described . While the US
EPA designated TV and computer picture tubes as hazardous
wastes as long ago as the late 1980's, California's
agencies have only recently taken direct action to regulate
and assist in the proper collection, recycling, processing
and disposal of E-waste. Last year, two state agencies
took administrative actions to address growing awareness
and concern over the E-waste problem.
In August of 2001, DTSC adopted emergency regulations
designating CRT's as "universal wastes" subject to its
universal waste regulations (CCR Title 22 Section 66273 et.
seq.). These regulations prohibit the disposal of CRT's in
solid waste landfills and established procedures for the
handling, processing, recycling, and disposal of CRT's.
During the same timeframe, the CIWMB undertook a series of
non-regulatory actions to address the problem of E-waste.
The Board is supporting local E-waste collection activities
through its annual household hazardous waste grant awards
to local governments. It has also allocated $110,000 for a
study of E-waste generation and infrastructure in
SB 1523
Page 7
California, and for development of state agency guidelines
for procurement and end-of-life management of electronic
equipment. Finally, the board has conducted a series of
workshops and has provided guidance to LEA's on the proper
management and disposal of E-waste.
2) National "Dialogue" On E-Waste Described . The National
Electronics Products Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) is a
non-governmental, non-regulatory voluntary organization
established in April 2001 to create a "dialogue" among
industry, environmental, recycling, and other stakeholders
on the issue of electronic products management. According
to its press materials, NEPSI consists of 45 participants,
split evenly among industry, government, and includes
environmental groups, recyclers, and retailers.
According to NEPSI's website, "The infrastructure for
collecting, reusing and recycling electronics in the United
States has not kept pace with this growing waste stream,
and the number of electronic products entering the waste
stream is projected to increase dramatically unless reuse
and recycling options expand.
NEPSI's principal goal for the dialogue is '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.'
The NEPSI Dialogue has apparently agreed upon a non-binding
timeline of the fall of 2002 for the review and completion
of its efforts to develop a national model program for the
management of E-waste.
3) Senate Select Committee on Urban Landfills Conducted
Hearing On Electronic Waste . In January of this year, the
Senate Select Committee held a hearing on the subject of
E-waste and CRT's in which it took testimony from
environmental groups, high-tech industry representatives,
waste haulers and numerous other groups on the problem of
E-waste. The chair of that Committee, Senator Romero, has
a bill on the committee's agenda today that also addresses
SB 1523
Page 8
the problem of E-waste.
4) Opponents State E-Waste Problem Should Be Addressed At
National Level . Opponents to this measure, principally the
electronics and high-tech industry, state that they oppose
"a state-by-state piecemeal approach to the issue of
electronics recycling" and prefer to work through the NEPSI
process to develop a national solution to the problem. The
opponents state that there currently are a number of
voluntary recycling programs undertaken by individual
companies to address the E-waste problem.
Opponents state that "state legislation on electronics
recycling has the potential to severely disadvantage
California manufacturers and the health of California's
economy. Placing a fee on California electronic products
could immediately put companies located in California at a
disadvantage to those companies without nexus in
California."
The opponents contend that a single state is not able to
impose a front-end financing mechanism that would apply
fairly to all types of sales. For example, a fee at the
point of sale, as proposed under this measure, could not
likely be required on direct mail and Internet purchases
from retailers without nexus in California. They state
that at least one-quarter of computer sales and a small but
growing percentage of consumer electronic sales are
conducted over the Internet or through remote sellers such
as catalogue sales. Many of these sales can not be subject
to fees implemented on a state-by-state basis.
The opponents contend that the equity problem will not be
rectified if the fee was instead levied at the point of
manufacturer distribution, rather than at point of sale,
due to the issue of trade and interstate commerce.
Opponents state that "There is absolutely no way for a
manufacturer, whose plant is out-of-state or out of the
country, to know where the product will end up. Once it is
released from the original distribution center, the product
can be sent to another distribution center in another
state, and once sent to the retailer (ie, Circuit City,
Best Buy, etc) there is no definitive procedure in
SB 1523
Page 9
determining where this product will then be shipped."
The opponents conclude that, in today's fragile economy,
California cannot afford to burden in-state companies with
this type of financing scheme.
5) Bill Should Provide Greater Specificity on Level of
Recycling Fee . As presently drafted, this measure does not
specify the amount of the recycling fee to be imposed by
retailers to assist in the recycling of CRT's, nor does it
place any parameters on the CIWMB in the amount to which
the fee may be adjusted. The author may wish to consider
revising these provisions to establish a "cap" of $30 per
unit for the fee, to authorize the CIWMB to establish a
"sliding scale based on the bill's provisions to take into
account the types and amounts of hazardous materials in a
given CRT, and require the board to set the fee at the
lowest feasible level while ensuring the proper handling,
processing, recycling, refurbishment and disposal of CRT's.
6) Bill Should Provide Greater Specificity on How Funds
Collected by CIWMB Should Be Expended, and Be Reconciled
Both With Household Hazardous Waste Grant Program and
Program Proposed Under SB 1526 (Romero) . As noted in the
digest above, the bill currently specifies that funds from
the collection of the fee may be spent as matching grants
to local governments, for recycling incentive fees to CRT
handlers and processors, and for grants to non-profits.
The author and committee may wish to consider the following
changes to these provisions.
First, and with respect to non-profits (page 4, line 39), the
bill should provide grants to non-profit organizations that
receive CRT devices for the purpose of refurbishing for
resale and for training of individuals in the repair,
refurbishing or recycling of such devices, whether the
devices are accepted as donations or that are left at
unstaffed donation sites.
Second, the bill should make grant funds available to
for-profit organizations, including electronics companies,
for the purposes of continuing their efforts to recycle old
CRT's.
SB 1523
Page 10
Third, the bill might be clarified to allow the board to pay
an incentive fee to consumers (i.e. a deposit of sorts) to
encourage consumers to bring CRT's to recycling locations.
Fourth, the bill might be amended to ensure that funds can be
expended for public education on CRT hazards and recycling
opportunities, for market development for CRT reuse, and
for research into alternatives to using hazardous materials
in CRT's.
Fifth, this bill's expenditure provisions should be meshed
with those for household hazardous waste grants under
current law and the provisions of SB 1526 (Romero) which
also imposes fees on the out-of-state disposal of waste
materials and uses the funds to fund E-waste programs.
And last, the bill might me amended to ensure that DTSC is
provided with funds to implement its regulatory activities
to address CRT's.
7) Bill Should Require That Fund/Grant Recipients Abide By
Conditions Ensuring Proper Disposal and Recycling of CRT's.
Given the substance of the report described under comment
(3) the author and the committee may wish to amend this
bill to ensure that parties receiving funding from the
account stipulate and verify that they will ensure the
proper handling, processing, and disposal of CRT's so that
they do not become an international environmental hazard.
8) Bill Should Be Clarified to Assure Its Applicability to All
CRT Vendors . As presently drafted, this measure requires
"retailers' to levy the recycling fee on consumers at the
point of sale. However, as the opponents have pointed out,
there are a significant number of CRT sales that take place
over the internet or through transactions not involving a
specific point of sale in the state. The author and the
committee may wish to amend the bill to clarify that the
fee should be imposed at the point of sale, that if there
is no physical point of sale the board should develop
procedures for tracking and verifying sales made over the
internet and assessing the fee on those sales accordingly,
prohibiting the purchase of CRT's unless the fee has been
SB 1523
Page 11
paid, and establishing a mechanism to verify that the fee
has been paid (e.g. a sticker issued by the board verifying
payment of the fee and ensuring that the consumer may
recycle the CRT without cost.).
12)Bill Should Be Amended to Take Into Account Potential
Federal Action on E-Waste . In arguing against this
measure, the opponents to the bill state that the NEPSI
process will result in a single, federal "solution" to the
E-waste problem and that that solution should be in lieu of
any single state efforts in the area. In fact, there is no
assurance that the NEPSI process will result in a
meaningful and enforceable national scheme to manage
E-waste. Indeed, to date, at least publicly, the
"dialogue" seems to have focussed principally on general
policy and press pronouncements which, while useful in some
respects, are sufficiently bland for all parties to
embrace. (As an indication of the looseness of the NEPSI
process, one might note that, despite agreement among
NEPSI's stakeholders that the dialogue itself would not be
used in "the advocacy for any purpose without the agreement
of the stakeholders on a joint position?" a number of its
members expressly use the NEPSI process as one basis for
their opposition to this bill and SB 1619.)
Moreover, even if NEPSI's stakeholders were to agree on a
meaningful scheme, no one can reliably predict whether the
Congress, the President, and federal administrative
agencies would embrace it simply because a group of 45
stakeholders endorsed it. Lastly, even if all parties were
to agree to a national solution to the E-waste problem,
there is no reason why the California Legislature, which
has not been a party to NEPSI, should necessarily be bound
by the negotiations and decisions of a set of non-elected
parties meeting outside of the state to devise a solution.
Having stated that, there are precedents in other areas of
environmental law for state legislation to establish a set
of standards which, if they were to be adopted by Congress
or the federal government, would render the state law
inoperative. The author and the committee may wish to
consider whether the bill should contain a provision of
this nature.
SB 1523
Page 12
13)Technical Amendments Needed . This measure needs several
technical amendments. First, the continuous appropriation
on page 3 line 40 and page 4, line 1 should be deleted from
the bill and replaced with language making the funds in the
account available upon appropriation by the Legislature.
Second, terms such as "retailer" should be defined (a
useful definition might be found in the Beverage Container
Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, Division 12.1.
(commencing with Section 14500) of the Public Resources
Code. Next, the bill should allow retailers to retain a
small portion of the fees collected to cover their costs in
collecting and forwarding the fee. Next, the bill should
eliminate the language on page 3, line 33 which restricts
the board from adjusting the fee until January 1, 2005 in
favor of the provision described in comment (8). Lastly,
following upon the model of the CIWMB itself, appointments
to the advisory committee should be specified in greater
detail and at least two should be made by the Senate Rules
Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly.
SOURCE : Senator Sher
SUPPORT : Allied Waste, Inc., California Refuse Removal
Council, California State Association of
Counties, City and County of San Francisco,
City Council, Cities of Costa Mesa, Davis,
Lakewood, Milpitas and Santa Ana, Council of
California Goodwill Industries, County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
League of California Cities, Norcal Waste
Systems, Inc., Planning and Conservation
League, Republic Services, Inc., San Luis
Obispo County Integrated Waste Management
Authority, Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors, Sierra Club, Solid Waste
Association of North America, California
Chapters Waste Management, Inc.
OPPOSITION : American Electronics Association and Electronic
Industries Alliance, California Chamber of
Commerce, California Manufacturers and
Technology Association, Computing Technology
SB 1523
Page 13
Industry Association