Advanced Recovery Fee Model
The ARF involves an additional fee paid by the buyer at the time of purchase. Fees can range from $5 to $15 per system-level piece of equipment (e.g., CRT monitor or T.V., computer, laptop, printer, etc.) The government and/or a Third Party Organization (TPO) would manage the funds collected and typically distribute payments to processors by the pound.

Most are concerned that the government or TPO will have no incentive for the manufacturer to design for the environment. Although it is hard to imagine the government reducing fees, the ARF would provide a means (through the upfront fee to the consumer) to raise the capital required to fund the collection and processing of the materials covered.

The current or proposed ARF models address only one or two items, such as CRT televisions and monitors. A few states are considering a short list of other items. An additional fee will likely be assessed for each item purchased.

It is hard to determine if economies of scale and/or market competition would play out so that program costs under the ARF system will be reduced as volume increases. This might work if only a few large companies handle the majority of the materials collected; however, if the volume is spread among many recyclers (as is the case in California), the costs to operate will likely increase at each facility annually creating a situation where fees may have to be increased to cover cost of living and inflation.

Processors must comply with state-mandated guidelines, which vary from state to state, to be paid for services. The requirement typically involves the confirmed destruction of the unit, for example breaking or releasing the vacuum from a CRT. Although some products such as most monitors should be destroyed to assure they don't end up disposed of improperly, the ARF model would discourage reuse for many quality working used items.

The ARF model poses several issues related to the ever changing landscape of available technology. For example, the ARF is item specific, which would leave new technology like flat panels or new gaming technology (which both contain toxic materials) unregulated unless state laws are modified to include these items. We all know how long it takes to change the law…it is like watching molasses freeze! New technology containing hazardous materials may go unchecked for years while legislators determine how best to manage the issues.

Electronics Producer Responsibility Model (EPR)
The EPR model is intended to place the responsibility on the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to manage the products it manufactures.

In general the OEM must develop a means to collect its share of products being discarded and be responsible for the processing of the materials collected. The EPR model incurs a "shared responsibility" cost based on the percentage of materials sold or returned for recycling. A one-time fee of $5,000 to $10,000 and annual fees of up to $5,000 are paid by any OEM who wants to sell electronics in a given state. An equation (which is difficult to understand) establishes what amount of materials (usually in tons) that a manufacturer is responsible to develop a program and mechanism for collection and processing materials.

Under this model, manufacturers are expected to be responsible for the collection and processing either in-house or through a qualified network of recyclers. It is argued that manufacturers would have an incentive to develop "green" - more energy efficient products manufactured with less toxic materials - and asset disposal is also under more scrutiny. To keep a "green" image, it is assumed that manufacturers will set the bar high for recyclers to qualify as processors. Hesstech has been qualified by multiple OEMs and can confirm they are typically the most rigid and applicable audits.

It is also argued that under the EPR model, the burden will be on manufacturers to drive down the cost of recycling by designing "greener" products and requiring innovative technologies from their recycling partners.

As with the ARF model, the EPR model typically includes a limited number of items as targeted materials. Maine currently collects monitors, TVs, and laptops. In hope that the EPR model will be more environmentally sound, cost effective, and provide for an efficient means to expand the list of targeted materials, Hesstech favors the EPR model.

Issues with Each Model
Both the ARF and EPR models typically lack the depth to sufficiently address the full scope of disposal issues associated with end-of-life electronics processing, primarily because they are item specific and only target a limited number of products.

Toxicity is present in many items such as printers, small electronic devices with batteries or LCDs, cell phones, medical and lab equipment, etc. Unless the focus is shifted from a per item viewpoint to one that addresses the toxicity of a product, thousands of tons of toxic materials will likely continue to pour out from our docks to countries with little or no security or environmental controls.

Please contact Hesstech if you would like more information or have comments for the government officials working on developing the industry rules and best management practices.

The following U.S. regulations will impact you and the company you choose to process your end-of-life electronics equipment.

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) - TSCA is the primary federal statute for regulating industrial chemicals. TSCA sets requirements for testing of chemicals and reporting of data for chemicals once they are in use. Under TSCA, the EPA has set up a new chemicals review process.
• Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) - PPA says that pollution should be prevented or reduced whenever feasible; or recycled in an environmentally safe manner and that pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be disposed or treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible. With a few exceptions, PPA applies to Federal Government activities, and do not impose any additional regulatory obligations on the chemical industry.
• Clean Air Act (CAA) - CAA sets goals and standards for the quality and purity of air in the U.S.
• Clean Water Act (CWA) - CWA sets goals and standards for U.S. water quality and purity. It has been amended several times, most prominently in 1987 to increase controls on toxic pollutants, and in 1990, to more effectively address the hazard of oil spills.
• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) - The Occupational and Safety Health Act was created to protect worker and workplace safety. Its main aim is to ensure that employers provide their workers with an environment free from dangers to their safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions.
• Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act or Proposition 65 - Prop 65 is a California law passed by voter initiative designed to provide public warnings about the risk of exposure to toxic chemicals and to eliminate toxins from drinking water supplies. Proposition 65 has helped make the state a model for other regions seeking to address environmental hazards.
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)/Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) - TRI is an EPA database containing information about the release of toxic emissions from industrial facilities. It was developed in 1986 as a result of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA).
• Superfund - Because government has only limited power to restrict chemicals in use, there are thousands of toxic chemical messes in need of clean up. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as Superfund, is the U.S. federal law that provides direction for clean up of hazardous waste releases. Passing of Superfund was an important step in the fight to clean up toxins in our environment, but it is not enough. Challenges still arise when trying to track down liable companies and defining just what it means for a site to be clean. Click Here to learn more.