New York State s Producer Responsibility Law for Electronic Waste:

Transcription

1 New York State s Producer Responsibility Law for Electronic Waste: IMPACTS AND EFFECTIVENESS IN RURAL AREAS FINAL REPORT September 30, 2012 Prepared by the Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.

2 The Product Stewardship Institute The Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) is a national non-profit organization that brings together key stakeholders with conflicting interests to jointly develop product stewardship solutions that reduce the health, environmental, and social impacts of consumer products. Leveraging its membership base of 47 state governments, over 200 local governments, and partnerships with more than 75 companies, organizations, universities, and non-u.s. governments, PSI pursues initiatives to ensure that all those involved in the lifecycle of a product share responsibility for reducing its impact, with producers bearing primary financial and managerial responsibility. PSI works on over 15 product categories including packaging, electronics, and pharmaceuticals, and advances both voluntary programs and legislation to promote effective industry-led initiatives that support sustainable materials management. Acknowledgements This report was developed by the Product Stewardship Institute for the Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse University. PSI would like to thank the many individuals who provided input in the development of this report. For a list of interviewees, see Appendix 1. Project Contact For more information, please contact Evan Newell, PSI Associate for Policy, at evan@productstewardship.us, or (617) September 31, 2012

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. KEY FINDINGS... 2 III. CHALLENGES OF COLLECTING IN RURAL AREAS... 3 IV. GOOD NEWS FOR RESIDENTS IN RURAL COMMUNITIES... 4 V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE... 7 APPENDIX 1: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS... 8 September 31, 2012

4 I. INTRODUCTION On April 1, 2011, the State of New York put into effect the Electronic Equipment Reuse and Recycling Act, a law requiring manufacturers of televisions, computers, peripheral devices (e.g., keyboards and mouses), and a host of other electronic products to create and fund a plan to collect and recycle these items at the end of their useful lives. This extended producer responsibility (EPR) law is the 22nd of its kind in the U.S., but it is considered by many policy experts to be the most progressive and comprehensive. One year later, the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) conducted a survey and interviews to determine the effectiveness of this state-mandated electronics collection and recycling program. The results of that assessment, which PSI presented in the report, New York State's Producer Responsibility Law: Reflecting on the First Year, revealed the following: An expanded, competitive marketplace for e-waste recycling made possible by the EPR law has allowed many municipalities to enjoy reduced costs of managing waste electronics. Indeed, none of the local governments interviewed is still paying a vendor fee for electronics recycling. The new competitive landscape has also increased the number of collection services for residents. Residents of New York City have fewer opportunities to participate in electronics take-back programs than do residents in the rest of New York State. More public outreach and education is needed statewide to increase electronics recycling. A municipal worker at a transfer station in the town of Southold, New York, prepares a pallet of CRT televisions for pickup. Photo courtesy Jim Bunchuck PSI recognized, however, that more detail was needed to understand how the EPR law specifically impacted New York s rural areas, where municipal resources can be scarce, and where low population density creates additional hurdles for establishing collection and recycling services. Furthermore, New York's law includes a requirement that manufacturers provide for at least one collection point in every county, as well as one in every population center over 10,000 people; some suggested this would disenfranchise New York's small towns and villages. For these reasons, PSI conducted a follow-up survey and additional interviews with local government officials (interview list provided in Appendix) in self-defined remote, rural areas of the state. The goal was to determine whether electronics collection totals were increasing, whether convenience and accessibility were improving, and whether municipal costs of managing electronic waste were decreasing. This report draws upon the results of those interviews and survey responses. September 31,

5 II. KEY FINDINGS Impacts of the New York State Electronic Equipment Reuse and Recycling Act varied somewhat from one rural area to another, but the following general trends emerged: Rural governments are bearing less cost to manage e-waste Most respondents from rural counties and towns reported that the cost of managing electronic waste has gone down in the past year. Some counties attribute cost savings to running a reduced number of collection events, thanks to expanded collections by local towns. Others cite new contract terms with processors: where counties and towns were once paying by the pound for recycling companies to pick up e-waste, processors are now picking up e-waste for free, or even paying between $0.04 and $0.10/lb. Some recycling coordinators estimate that their e-waste program is now cost-neutral. Rural residents are recycling more electronics, and it is easier and less expensive for them to do so While the DEC s official data are not yet available, rural respondents were more likely to report a perceived increase in electronics recycling than non-rural respondents. Furthermore, where many rural residents formerly had to pay to recycle electronics, they now have access to the free collection and recycling services that urban residents already enjoyed. This is perhaps because local governments participating in manufacturer-sponsored programs are no longer allowed to charge for recycling services, and rural counties and towns were more likely to charge for e-waste collection prior to the law taking effect than their urban counterparts were. In fact, with the law now in place, over 60 percent of these communities reported that they stopped charging. However, it is unclear if those that still charge are affiliated with a manufacturer program, which would be a violation. Rural areas, like non-rural areas, have also seen an increase in available drop-off locations since the law took effect, and collections in rural areas have shifted from singleday drop-off events to year-round, permanent drop-off sites. Rural residents are recycling a wider array of electronic products Prior to New York s e-waste law taking effect, some rural areas placed restrictions on the types of electronic equipment they would accept for collection, such as computer peripherals. Urban residents typically did not face these limitations. However, the EPR law has standardized what is acceptable at collection points statewide, and has created a recycling market for an expanded array product types, giving rural residents new options for properly managing more of their end-of-life products. Additional outreach regarding electronics recycling is needed in all parts of the state Both rural and non-rural areas note in surveys and interviews that one of their greatest needs is better outreach and education to inform citizens about their recycling responsibilities and options. Very few municipal waste and recycling officials reported receiving any outside support for outreach activities. In some non-rural areas, the county or town was able to shift its focus from collecting e-waste to educating residents about the retail drop-off options available in the area. By contrast, rural counties and towns did not have this option because they lack large retail centers that typically serve as collection sites. September 31,

6 The most remote areas of the state are still underserved, but they have found creative ways to make new markets work for them Compared to residents of non-rural communities in New York State, residents of rural areas still face difficulties when trying to recycle used electronics due to the higher cost of running collection and recycling operations in these locations. Nevertheless, recyclers have been able to gather the tonnage that manufacturers demand by offering better contracts to more densely populated and conveniently located areas, often with well-functioning collection programs already in place. They have also started collecting through contracts with large businesses. In the future, additional incentives, such as rural tonnage multipliers, may help attract manufacturers to very remote locations for collection. However, several rural processing contracts, and comments from a representative of a prominent e-waste recycling firm, suggest that savvy, motivated recycling coordinators are able make e-waste recycling feasible in nearly any part of the state. In areas like the North Country, rural counties have begun relying more heavily on towns to provide e-waste drop-off facilities, thereby increasing convenience. They have also teamed up with towns to negotiate better contracts with recyclers. III. CHALLENGES OF COLLECTING IN RURAL AREAS Achieving Volume Several factors make operating an electronics waste collection and recycling program in a rural area considerably more difficult than in an urban or suburban location. Perhaps most obvious is that the recycling business is driven by volume. Given the costs of fuel and truck maintenance, most recycling companies need to pick up at least one semi-trailer full of material at a time, as this is more economically viable. Unfortunately, the volume of e-waste at most rural area drop-off locations is often low because of one or both of the following reasons: The population is spread far from the county transfer station (as far as 200 miles round trip, in some cases); and Smaller populations (5,000 or fewer residents) produce a smaller total amount of material, even at the same per capita rate as the rest of the state. Assorted electronic equipment accumulates in an interim collection bin at the municipal transfer station in Southold. Items are placed in a sealed container for shipment. Photo courtesy Jim Bunchuck In the past, rural areas met the recyclers' volume threshold by accepting electronic waste for recycling only once or twice each year, often coupled with other household hazardous waste events. These events often draw lines of cars loaded with old televisions and computers, stored for months or years until the event takes place. However, while the communities are able to generate enough volume with these events to make the recycler s trip worthwhile, reports suggest that only 1 to 2 percent of households participate, and they are typically the same households each year. Thus, annual or biannual events are not a practical solution for most residents. September 31,

7 Retail Collection In urban areas, retailers like Staples and Best Buy, as well as resale stores like Goodwill, have been accepting used electronics for several years. After the New York State law passed, other retailers began following suit, helping expand public access to collection sites around the state. Indeed, residents in smaller cities and suburban areas need only drive 3 to 5 miles to the nearest retail collection site. Certain local governments have been able to take advantage of this increase in retail collection availability; In Syracuse, for example, the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency was able to cease municipal collection of e-waste altogether and focus its efforts, instead, on educating residents about retail drop-off options. However, residents in rural areas where retail and resale stores typically do not exist are not afforded the same luxury. To try to address this issue, one recycler began recruiting locally owned computer stores in strip malls across the state to act as collection points. While this led to a small uptick in the availability of retail collection sites, this is not a feasible solution in remote areas where no stores exist and where residents must rely on municipal services. Educating Residents In PSI s previous study of the statewide impacts of the New York State e-waste law, nearly all survey and interview participants responded that residents were under-informed about the existence of the new electronics EPR program and the changes it meant for them. Respondents said they had little-to-no outside support for their own outreach, and felt that either manufacturers or the DEC should have carried out a statewide educational campaign. Compared to more densely populated zones, rural areas face significant challenges to outreach, including access to fewer radio and television stations and local newspapers; less access to broadband internet access; an aging, less computer-savvy population, which reduces the effectiveness of campaigns and other web-based communication; and constrained financial and personnel resources. As a result, rural recycling coordinators report that residents are showing up to annual hazardous waste collection events with televisions, having no idea that they can take their electronics to a nearby town collection facility year-round. Even worse, they report that residents are bringing used electronics to the county landfill. IV. GOOD NEWS FOR RESIDENTS IN RURAL COMMUNITIES The figures on the following pages summarize analysis results of a survey of 41 solid waste managers and recycling coordinators from across New York State. September 31,

8 Figure 1: Change in number of collection sites Number of collection sites: Increased Significantly Increased Somewhat No Change Decreased Somewhat Decreased Significantly Don't Know No Response Percent of Communities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Figure 1 shows the change in number of collection sites since New York's EPR law took effect. Rural areas and non-rural areas reported approximately the same increase in number of collection locations since the EPR program started, with 40% of rural respondents reporting an increase, compared to 42% of non-rural respondents. Of rural respondents, 25% reported that the number of collection locations increased significantly. Non-Rural Rural Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the change in recycling costs for residents in rural communities before and after the law took effect, and compared to residents in other non-rural parts of the state. Figure 2 shows that the majority of rural areas reported a decrease in recycling costs for residents, while nearly 50% of non-rural areas reported no change (meaning e-waste collection was already free). Figure 3 shows that, before the law took effect, approximately 55% of rural communities reported charging a recycling fee for at least some types of electronic products. After the law took effect, approximately 65% reported charging no fees. An important yet unintended consequence of the law is that several recycling managers in towns and counties where fees have been eliminated have reported seeing residents from nearby communities with fees using their facilities. Depending on the community s contract with its processor, this extra tonnage can be a burden or a boon. Similar issues have arisen where a town is too small to demand its own collection site under the 10,000-person convenience standard, prompting residents to drop off material in neighboring communities. Figure 2: Change in electronics recycling costs for residents in rural and non-rural communities Recycling costs for residents: Increased No Change Decreased Don't Know No Response Percentage of Communities 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Non-Rural Rural Figure 3: Rural e-waste fees before and after the law Percentage of Rural Communities 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fees charged : Fees for All Products Fees for Some Products No Fees No Response Before Implementation After Implementation September 31,

9 Figure 4: Change in product types accepted Scope of electronics Percent of Communities accepted: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Increased Significantly Increased Somewhat No Change Decreased Somewhat Decreased Significantly Figure 4 illustrates the change in the range of product types accepted since New York's electronics EPR law was implemented. Rural communities saw a more significant increase in the scope of electronics accepted for recycling than did non-rural communities. Half of rural respondents reported some increase in the scope of electronics accepted, compared to 38% of non-rural respondents. Don't Know No Response Non-Rural Rural Figure 5: Change in recycling convenience Ease of recycling Percent of Communities for residents: 0% 20% 40% 60% Increased No Change Decreased Don't Know / No Response Non-Rural Rural Figure 5 illustrates the comparative increase in convenience of recycling electronic equipment between rural and non-rural communities. Rural communities were more likely to report an increase in ease of recycling than non-rural communities. Since rural residents faced higher costs and more inconvenience prior to the law taking effect, they have experienced greater marginal benefits from the law than their suburban and urban counterparts. This perceived gain in convenience likely reflects several factors: a shift from occasional collection events to year-round service a rise in the number of town-run dropoff centers, providing residents with new, conveniently located options the shift from paid to free collection September 31,

10 V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE Rural communities in New York State have experienced significant benefits during the first year of implementation of the state s electronics EPR law: reduced costs for local governments and residents; increased recycling rates; and increased convenience of recycling. But some of these improvements also reflect the gap between rural and non-rural recycling that still exists today, despite the law having gone into effect. The following suggested improvements to the law and the way it is implemented aim to further improve the outlook for rural areas: Increase outreach and education requirements for producers, and measure outreach performance Currently, manufacturers are only required to provide a website with information on how to recycle their products, along with a toll-free phone number to call for more information. All areas of the state have complained of inadequate outreach initiatives, but as noted earlier, rural communities face additional challenges accessing web-based tools. In the future, the law could be updated to require that manufacturers also provide education through additional media outlets, or that they develop and carry out their own outreach activities targeting a certain percentage of the population. These activities might include distributing resources to local solid waste management planning units for the express purpose of education. Absent additional manufacturer outreach, the DEC itself may consider a statewide educational campaign. Consider increasing per-capita collection targets statewide Although the DEC has not released its official data, early indications show that the majority of manufacturers had little difficulty acquiring the tonnage necessary to meet their collection targets early in the year. While the law contains a mechanism to increase manufacturers collection targets each year for a period of three years, these built-in incentives may not be sufficient to encourage the establishment of new collection services in underserved rural areas. New York could consider an across-the-board increase in collection targets if the data support it. Consider providing bonus credit for volume collected in rural areas Due to the additional expenses incurred from collecting and recycling in remote rural areas, and the difficulty in achieving large volumes there, manufacturers meet the bulk of their annual targets from urban and suburban areas. Some states, such as Minnesota, have included provisions in their laws that allow manufacturers to earn extra credit up to an additional 50 percent toward their annual collection goal for any material collected in rural areas. New York could consider such a provision in the future. This additional incentive would spur further growth of collection and recycling services in remote rural communities. Investigate whether pounds collected in rural areas that still charge fees to residents have been counted toward manufacturers goals As noted previously, over 60 percent of respondents who formerly charged residents for e-waste collection no longer do. However, it is possible that some fee-based community collection programs in rural areas are illegally part of a manufacturer program. In these cases, the residents of those communities should be receiving the service for free. It would be interesting for the DEC to investigate whether compliance is an issue in some remote areas. September 31,

11 APPENDIX 1: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS PSI interviewed the following people for this report. We thank everyone for sharing their time and expertise. The contents of this report benefits from information shared by these individuals, but are PSI s responsibility alone. Andrew Radin, Recycling Director, Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency Brian Donnelly, Solid and Hazardous Waste Facility Technician, Broome County Charlie McKernan Vice President, Regional Computer Recycling & Recovery Duane Beckett, CEO, Sunnking Inc. Jan Oatman, Regional Recycling Coordinator, Development Authority of the North Country Jim Bunchuck, Solid Waste Coordinator, Town of Southold Jim Lawrence, Superintendent, Jefferson County Highway Department Laura Petit, Recycling Coordinator, Town of New Paltz Marjorie Torelli, Administrator, Western Finger Lakes Solid Waste Management Authority Paul Kranz, Associate Engineer, Erie County Department of Environment and Planning Patrick Collins, Industrial Waste Engineer, Monroe County Department of Environmental Services Peggy Grayson, Recycling Administrator, GLOW Regional Solid Waste Management Committee Philip Murphy, Sr. Business Development Manager, Waste Management, Inc. Resa Dimino, Consultant, formerly Director of Legislative Programs at WeRecycle! Scott Thornhill, Recycling Coordinator, Saint Lawrence County Solid Waste Department Tracy Pierce, Solid Waste Analyst, Chautauqua County Division of Solid Waste September 31,