BILL ANALYSIS
SB 20
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Byron D. Sher, Chairman
2001-2002 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 20
AUTHOR: Sher
AMENDED: As Proposed To Be Amended
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: May 12, 2003
URGENCY: Yes CONSULTANT: Kip Lipper
SUBJECT : HAZARDOUS ELECTRONIC WASTE
RECOVERY, REUSE, AND RECYCLING
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 20
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 and
ensures that the state is delegated authority under RCRA:
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 enacts the Hazardous Electronic Waste Recovery,
Reuse, and Recycling Act of 2003 which does all of the
SB 20
Page 3
following:
1) Defines "hazardous electronic device" to be a consumer
product, component or device that uses an electric current
and which DTSC determines is hazardous material or
hazardous waste. Hazardous electronic devices include, but
are not limited to computer monitors, televisions and other
devices containing lead.
2) On or before January 1, 2007, and modeled on the Product
Stewardship Initiative adopted by the European Union,
rrequires DTSC to adopt regulations establishing dates and
procedures for the phase out of hazardous materials used in
the manufacture of hazardous electronic devices by the
earliest feasible date.
3) On or before January 1, 2005, requires DTSC to adopt
regulations prohibiting the use of devices that prevents or
impedes the recycling of hazardous electronic devices.
4) Prohibits the sale of hazardous electronic devices in the
state by a manufacturer unless that manufacturer
demonstrates to the CIWMB:
a) That it has prepared and implemented a hazardous
electronic waste recovery plan the demonstrates that it
will provide a cost-free and convenient opportunity for
consumers to recycle such devices.
b) That it complies with other requirements of the bill
such as placing its brand label on each device it sells
in the state, meeting specified targets for the
recycling of the waste, reporting its actions and
making specified information available to the board, and
ensuring that the waste is not improperly exported and
disposed in other countries.
5) Establishes procedures and deadlines for the CIWMB to
review, amend, approve or disapprove hazardous electronic
waste recovery plans and authorizes the board to impose a
fee to cover the board's reasonable costs in implementing
the program.
SB 20
Page 4
6) As an alternative to filing a hazardous electronic waste
recovery plan, authorizes a manufacturer to remit to the
board a fee that is calculated to pay the net average cost
of collecting, processing, and recycling hazardous
electronic waste.
7) Provides that the imposition of the fee is a matter of
statewide importance and preempts local agencies from
enacting similar fees.
8) Authorizes the CIWMB to impose administrative civil
penalties of p to $2,500 per violation for violations of
the aforementioned provisions, and to seek civil penalties
of up to $5,000 per violation in court.
9) Establishes procedures for the CIWMB to administer the
program, establishes a special fund in the state treasury
into which fee and fine or penalty revenues shall be
deposited, and specifies how those funds may be spent by
the board.
10)Prohibits state agencies from procuring hazardous
electronic devices unless the manufacturer demonstrates
compliance with the aforementioned provisions.
11)Provides that the board shall not implement the bill's
provisions if a federal law is enacted that meets similar
standards to those provided under the bill, or if a court
enters a final judgement that holds that the fee imposed on
manufacturers under the bill is not applicable to
out-of-state manufacturers.
12)Makes findings and declarations relative to electronic
waste products, and defines specified terms used in the
bill.
13)Contains an urgency clause.
COMMENTS
1) Purpose of the Bill . According to the author and
supporters of the bill, this measure is intended to ensure
that so-called electronic or "E" wastes, are properly
SB 20
Page 5
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 efficient and
cost-effective collection and processing of e-waste to
ensure that they do not pose a threat to public health and
the environment.
2) Opponents State Bill Creates Overly Complex, Overly Broad,
and Scientifically Unsound Process for E-Waste Recylcing .
Opponents to this measure, principally electronics
manufacturers, state that this measure "attempts to create
an overly complex system which does not build on the
environmental principle of shared responsibility and
proposes to phase out necessary materials with no
scientific justification."
The opponents state that the bill undermines efficient and
equitable environmental approach of shared responsibility,
and that the scope of regulated products is overly broad
and ignores critical product category distinctions. They
contend that the bill creates new mandate that overburdens
state and local governments, and harms consumer and
California's economy by increasing prices for electronic
products. The opponents assert that the phase out of
materials should be based on sound science, feasibility and
safety and that material bans are not based on sound risk
assessment or evaluation of alternatives and conflict with
provisions of SB 20's European "model". They assert that
the Rates and dates are unrealistic and unworkable.
Finally, the opponents state :
"[T]he industry supports the state's effort to reduce the
number of electronics disposed of in landfills and solid
waste management facilities, but we encourage California to
pursue non-legislative options to achieve that goal. Such
market-based options include, but are not limited to, tax
incentives, financial grants, and other cooperative
initiatives between industry and states. CIWMB has proven
SB 20
Page 6
to not just California but to the entire nation that
strategic public private partnerships can work. California
should build on this approach instead of changing the rules
on the towns. SB 20's scheme would expect the local
governments to stop working with CIWMB and start learning
how to deal with global manufacturers on individual company
programs. SB 20 fails to recognize the core competence and
efficiencies of the various stakeholders involved. The
bill places the burdens entirely on the high-tech industry,
rather than spreading costs across all parties who benefit
from the product.
The failure of SB 20 to create a sustainable, effective and
efficient system will have the consequence of increasing
the cost of electronics and/or limiting the products
available in the state. This unrealistic expectation is
unacceptable and forces the industry to adamantly oppose
this legislation."
3) 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
SB 20
Page 7
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
of waste CRT's. Disposing of CRTs to the trash or to a
municipal landfill is prohibited."
4) 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 report issued last 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
SB 20
Page 8
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
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.
SB 20
Page 9
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
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.'
SB 20
Page 10
3) Senate Select Committee on Urban Landfills Conducted
Hearing On Electronic Waste . In January of last 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 is
joint author of this measure.
4) Prior Legislation Vetoed . Last year, the Legislature
passed SB 1523 (Sher and Romero) that sought to enact into
law a CRT recovery program and impose a ten dollar per unit
advance recycling fee. That measure was vetoed by the
Governor whose message is reprinted herein:
"I am returning Senate Bill 1523 without my signature.
However, I am willing to sign legislation that challenges
industry to assume greater responsibility for the recycling
and disposal of electronic waste.
I am very troubled by an increasing electronic waste pollution
problem in California, as well as across our nation. Local
governments report increasing costs to handle, transport
and recycle discarded electronic equipment. The amassing
stockpile of obsolete and broken computer monitors and
televisions grows daily. I am equally disturbed that this
dangerous cargo is being sent to underdeveloped nations
exposing children to hazardous waste materials.
I applaud the author's effort to address these problems.
However, I am concerned that this program is not the most
efficient or cost effective approach for California. This
bill requires the state to hire 64 new people, at a time
when the Legislature has directed the Administration to cut
7,000 positions. Moreover, I believe that building a state
bureaucracy to address this problem is not the best
solution for managing electronic waste.
We should compel industry to solve this problem.
California has always been a global leader in the electronics
industry. I challenge the industry to lead the way and
SB 20
Page 11
devise an innovative solution for the source reduction,
recycling, and safe disposal of electronic waste. Industry
already has initiated several successful incentive programs
that create a partnership between the consumer and the
manufacturer. I believe this would be a better model for
California and would foster the concept of an
environmentally sustainable electronic and technology
industry and provides incentives to design products that
are less toxic and more recyclable.
Moreover, we simply must demonstrate our leadership and
compassion by making sure that California's electronic
waste is not irresponsibly sent to underdeveloped nations.
The European Union is working on a program to assure that
manufacturers maintain responsibility for the safe
recycling of the products they produce. I am encouraged by
the product stewardship approach and believe this model,
tailored to fit California's recycling and disposal
infrastructure is worth pursuing.
California needs a comprehensive and innovative state law that
partners with product manufacturers, establishes recycling
targets, and provides for the safe recycling and disposal
of electronic waste. Setting environmental standards and
providing manufacturers flexibility to meet them is the
cornerstone of California's air quality laws and has
generated a new generation of car emission reduction
technologies and improved air quality for the public.
I am convinced we can do the same for electronic waste. I
strongly urge industry and other interested parties to
rapidly devise a solution, in keeping with the goals I've
articulated in this message. There is no time to waste. I
believe California should have a new law next year.
I am asking my Secretary of the California Environmental
Protection Agency to take a leadership role in working with
the Legislature, government, industry, and stakeholders to
create a successful California electronic waste program. I
am directing the Department of General Services to take
steps to assure that the state purchases electronic
products that minimize environmental impacts and that state
electronic equipment is recycled using best available
SB 20
Page 12
practices."
9) T echnical Amendments Needed . This measure needs several
technical amendments. First, the extensive set of findings
in the bill should be shortened and consolidated. Second,
the definition of "consumer" in the bill may need to be
refined to ensure that it does not inadvertently pick up
manufacturer to manufacturer transactions or other
specialized transactions. Third, the local agency
preemption clause may need clarification to ensure that it
references the proper fee established by the bill. And
last, the bill needs a severability clause.
SOURCE : Senator Sher
SUPPORT : Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Allied
Waste, Inc., As You Sow, Californians Against
Waste, California State Association of
Counties, Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2),
City and County of San Francisco, City of
Cupertino, City of Sunnyvale, League of
California Cities, HMR: Los Angeles and San
Francisco, Humboldt Waste Management Authority
Board of Directors, Marin County Hazardous and
Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Norcal Waste
Systems, Inc., Planning and Conservation
League, Sierra Club, SoCal Computer Recyclers,
Inc., Sonoma County Waste Management Agency,
Urban Corps of San Diego, Waste Management
OPPOSITION : American Electronics Association, California
Manufacturers & Technology Association,
Electronic Industries Alliance