BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2202
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Ira Ruskin, Chair
AB 2202 (Saldana) - As Amended: April 24, 2006
SUBJECT : Hazardous waste: electronic devices
SUMMARY : Expands the scope of electronic products that would
be banned from sale in California if they are banned from sale
in the European Union (EU) pursuant to the Reduction of
Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive.
Specifically, this bill :
1. Redefines "electronic device" as any electronic plug-in
or battery operated device that also falls under the
categories set out in RoHS.
2. Defines RoHS.
3. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to prohibit an
electronic device from being offered for sale in California
if the device is prohibited by the EU on and after January
1, 2008.
EXISTING LAW
Requires DTSC to adopt regulations by January 1, 2007, to
prohibit certain electronic devices (those currently defined as
'covered electronic devices' for the purposes of the Electronic
Waste Recycling Act such as televisions, computer monitors and
laptop computers) for sale in California if they are prohibited
for sale in the EU.
Pursuant to the Annex 1A to Directive 2002/96/EC, adopted by the
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on
January 27, 2003 and as amended thereafter by the Commission of
European Communities, prohibits the sale of certain electronic
devices from being sold or offered for sale in the EU due to the
presence of certain heavy metals.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1. RoHS: EU and California
AB 2202
Page 2
According to the U S EPA, about 70% of the toxic heavy
metals found in landfills come from electronic waste.
Lead, mercury, cadmium and a host of other toxic heavy
metals contained in most consumer electronics pose a real
threat to public health and the environment. These toxic
substances can damage nervous, kidney and reproductive
systems, while some of the metals contain carcinogens,
which are known to cause cancer.
RoHS, or the "Restriction of the use of Certain Hazardous
Substances," refers to the ban on the use of hazardous
substances in electronic devices under the EU directive
2002/95/EC. Under the EU RoHS, electronic products
containing lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and
two types of brominated flame retardants are banned from
sale beginning July 1, 2006. Currently, the ban will only
apply to products sold in the EU, but are expected to have
a worldwide impact since companies are not expected to
create two versions of their products for sale in different
markets. As a result, other countries and states,
including California, are beginning to look at stronger
environmental standards to match what the EU is doing.
California has a similar RoHS law, which requires DTSC to
adopt regulations that prohibit an electronic device from
being sold or offered for sale if they are prohibited under
the EU's RoHS. However, the California's RoHS applies only
to electronic devices which are currently covered under the
Electronic Waste Recycling Act, including televisions,
computer monitors and laptop computers. This bill would
expand the California RoHS law to include any electronic
device that is covered under the EU RoHS directive.
2. Need for the bill
The author has indicated that SB 2202 is intended to send a
message to manufacturers and their suppliers that
California expects the same environmentally preferable
electronic products to be sold here as in the EU. Also, it
is hoped that if an economy as large as California's
demands the level of safety for its electronic products as
in the EU, this will help drive the global market place to
shift the world market to safer products. The bill is not
intended to have any broader implementation than of that of
the EU and it is not intended to apply to products that are
AB 2202
Page 3
not sold in the EU marketplace. With the EU RoHS coming on
line this summer, it is necessary to ensure California has
a similar measure in place, even if it is prospective, to
prevent non-EU RoHS compliant products from being sold in
California and insist on the same level of environmental
safety.
3. Outstanding Issues
Since the hearing in the Natural Resources Committee on
April 3, 2006, the author and the sponsor, in response to
direction given during the hearing, have done further
research and met with stakeholders. While the April 24th
amendments do not address all the issues raised by
stakeholders, it appears that issues are becoming more
clearly defined and thus resolution appears possible. The
major issues appear to be:
a. Timing: Is January 2008 the correct
implementation date?
Many manufacturers have indicated that the
implementation date in SB 2202 of January 2008
presents a significant challenge. While some
manufacturers such as Sony are already RoHS compliant,
others are concerned that the 2008 date is problematic
given product design, lifecycle, and component supply
chain and other like issues. The EU RoHS directive
allowed a four year phase in period. China has
recently issued its own version of RoHS, with an
effective date of March 2007. It is likely that with
further negotiations, an implementation date that fits
the needs of stakeholders could be decided upon.
b. Enforcement: What will it look like for
California?
An efficient and effective enforcement program is
essential to make sure the playing field is level for
all stakeholders and to ensure the law is implemented
equitably. Consistency in the types and methods of
enforcement of the EU RoHS is an issue raised by many
manufacturers that also applies to a California RoHS.
However, with the EU member states still in the
development stages of their enforcement efforts, there
is not yet a model to point to. Some EU member
states, such as the United Kingdom are farther along
AB 2202
Page 4
in their enforcement program which could serve as a
model for California. As implementation moves forward
in the EU, enforcement models and protocols will be
developed that could be used by California. Also, the
DTSC is working on the regulations to implement the
pending January 2007 requirement for the current scope
of products that could be banned from California sale.
A solution to this issue might be to not require DTSC
to develop an enforcement strategy for a California
RoHS until there are models to use as guides and to
further define DTSC's role. This option, among
others, is being discussed among the proponents of AB
2202 and manufacturers.
c. Scope of products: European market vs
California market?
The goal of AB 2202 is to parallel the EU RoHS and
ensure that a product that cannot be sold in the EU
cannot be sold in California. However, it is
necessary to clarify how that process will work.
Again, because the EU and member states are finalizing
their enforcement methods and determining how the ban
will be implemented, this is an issue that will become
clearer as that process goes forward. It is important
to remember that because a product could not be banned
from sale in California until it has been banned in
the EU, it is not possible for California to 'get
ahead' of the EU and ban the sale of products on its
own and cause confusion for manufacturers.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Californians Against Waste
Earthtones
Sierra Club California
Planning and Conservation League
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics
Stopwaste.org
California League of Conservation Voters
Opposition
American Electronics Association
AB 2202
Page 5
Cingular Wireless
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Consumer Electronic Association
CTIA-The Wireless Association
Electronic Industries Alliance
QUALCOMM, Inc.
National Electrical Manufactures Association
Semiconductor Industry Association
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Analysis Prepared by : Caroll Mortensen / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965