1 2 CITY COUNCIL 3 CITY OF NEW YORK 4 -------------------------------x 5 THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINUTES 6 of the 7 COMMITTEE ON SANITATION And SOLID 8 WASTE MANAGEMENT 9 -------------------------------x 10 January 14, 2008 11 Start: 1:21 p.m. Recess: 4:55 p.m. 12 City Hall 13 Council Chamber New York, New York 14 15 B E F O R E: 16 MICHAEL McMAHON Chairperson, 17 18 COUNCIL MEMBERS: James Gennaro Robert Jackson 19 David Yassky Maria Arroyo 20 Jessica Lappin Oliver Koppell 21 Bill DeBlasio Leroy Comrie 22 23 24 LEGAL-EASE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. 17 Battery Place - Suite 1308 25 New York, New York 10004 (800) 756-3410 2 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S 3 Robert Orlin 4 Deputy Commissioner Bureau of Legal Affairs 5 NYC Department of Sanitation 6 Robert Lange Director of the Bureau of Waste Prevention 7 NYC Department of Sanitation 8 Victoria Reinhardt Ramsey County, Minnesota 9 Patricia Widlitz 10 Connecticut State Representative 98th Assembly District 11 Hartford, Connecticut 12 Assemblyman William Colton NY Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management 13 Kate Sinding 14 Senior Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council 15 Ted Smith 16 Chair Electronics TakeBack Coalition 17 Scott Hughes 18 Strategic Initiatives Group Apple, Inc. 19 Stephen Corson 20 Office of Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer 21 Lawrence A. Mandelker New York Metropolitan Retail Association 22 Timothy McGrady 23 Environmental Manager LG Electronics, USA 24 25 3 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED) 3 Francis Valluzzo 4 Manager, State and Local Government Relations Dell, Inc. 5 Zachary Bernstein 6 Hewlett-Packard Company 7 Ryan Key Project Coordinator 8 New York Public Interest Research Group 9 Dave A. Smith WeRecycle, Inc. 10 Jazmin V. Hupp 11 Manager Tekserve 12 Meggan Ehret 13 Senior Counsel Thomson, Inc. 14 Sarah Wills 15 Government Relations Manager General Electric Company 16 Richard Goss 17 Vice President of Environment & Sustainability Information Technology Industry Council 18 Parker Brugge 19 Consumer Electronics Association 20 Justin Wright American Electronic Association 21 Bill Rappel 22 Director of the Affiliate Network And Legislative Affairs 23 Computers for Youth 24 25 4 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED) 3 Kate Zidar 4 Assistant Building Consultant Habana Outpost 5 Bobbi Chase Wilding 6 Organizing Director Clean New York 7 Christine Datz-Romero 8 Executive Director Lower East Side Ecology Center 9 Maite Quinn 10 ISRI NY Chapter President Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Good afternoon, 3 everyone. My name is Michael McMahon. I am the 4 Chairperson of the Sanitation and Solid Waste 5 Management Committee of the New York City Council, 6 and I hereby convene today's hearing. 7 Today the Committee will hear 8 testimony regarding proposed Intro. No. 104-A known 9 as the E-waste Bill. Approximately one year ago this 10 Committee held a hearing on Intro. 104. At that 11 hearing we heard from the manufacturers, 12 environmental advocates, retailers, electronic 13 manufacturers, representatives of our State 14 Legislature and the Northeast Regional Electronic 15 Recycling Conference. We studied all of the 16 recommendations and comments made at the hearing and 17 made substantial changes to the bill to deal with 18 many of the concerns expressed at that hearing, 19 while not changing the basic premise or weakening 20 the bill. 21 Basically, proposed Intro. No. 104 22 provides for manufacturer take-back and recycling of 23 computers, including CPUs, monitors, keyboards, 24 laptops and mice, printers and televisions, probably 25 the largest growing area, and digital music players. 6 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 I'm happy to say I can operate about 3 half of those items. 4 The bill allows the manufacturers the 5 flexibility to determine how they will collect and 6 recycle e-waste, while setting yearly performance 7 standards that they must meet. 8 Some of the changes that were made in 9 the bill include: 10 Performance standards do not become 11 effective until July 1st, 2012, three years after 12 the program begins, giving manufacturers time to 13 develop the collection system and for the government 14 to evaluate how the manufacturer's plans are working 15 and to implement changes, if necessary. 16 The label on the cover of the 17 electronic equipment need only contain the 18 manufacturer's name. 19 The performance standard percentages 20 were lowered. 21 Records of collected waste will be 22 based on weight collected as opposed to the number 23 of individual units collected. 24 Manufacturers can make agreements 25 with businesses to charge for the removal of large 7 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 amounts of electronic waste. 3 The private right to bring litigation 4 has been eliminated, and the definition of covered 5 electronic equipment was amended to specifically 6 exclude equipment that was not intended to be 7 captured by this bill. 8 The area of the e-waste has been 9 progressing rapidly since our last hearing. 10 Prior to that hearing only three 11 states, California, Maine and Maryland had begun 12 implementing e-waste programs in their states, and 13 after 18 months of study and debate, the Northeast 14 Regional Electronics Recycling Conference released 15 their model e-waste legislation. 16 Since that hearing, seven more 17 states, Washington, Minnesota, Texas, Oregon, 18 Connecticut, North Carolina and just last week, New 19 Jersey, passed Producer Responsibility e-waste 20 Legislation. We will hear from representatives of 21 two of those states today. 22 In addition, computer manufacturers, 23 such as Apple, Dell and Hewlett Packard, have been 24 expanding their own take-back programs and they 25 themselves are advocating for more manufacturer 8 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 responsibility. 3 We believe we are the first 4 municipality to propose such a law and the first law 5 in this country to propose full extended 6 manufacturer responsibility for the end of life 7 costs for these items. 8 Although the idea of extended 9 manufacturer responsibility has been adopted 10 extensively in Europe, it has yet to be adopted as 11 public policy in this country. We hope to change 12 that. 13 We began last week by passing a bill 14 requiring recycling of plastic bags by producers. 15 The point is that this is part of a much larger 16 effort by this Committee and this Council to make 17 recycling the cornerstone of individual action to 18 make this planet more sustainable and to leave a 19 healthier planet for future generations. 20 We all hope, against all hope I would 21 imagine, that the federal government would pass a 22 uniform e-waste recycling law. But, unfortunately, 23 that does not now appear to be a reality in the near 24 future. 25 Likewise, our State Legislators do 9 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 not appear yet ready to take the lead in this area, 3 despite the efforts to get such a bill passed by 4 people like Bill Colton of Brooklyn who will testify 5 about his efforts, who has testified and will 6 testify about his efforts. 7 In the meantime, the cost of 8 exporting e-waste by the City continues to climb, as 9 the cost of exploiting waste skyrockets. 10 In addition, we, as the City, 11 continue to export toxic material to incinerators in 12 New Jersey and landfills in Pennsylvania and 13 Virginia. 14 We must be aware of the effect that 15 this has on our neighbors, and take the necessary 16 action to rectify it. 17 It is time to move forward and pass 18 this legislation as soon as possible. And I think we 19 talked about in prior hearings why this is so 20 urgent, but as you all know, the electronic waste 21 contains substances, including but not limited to, 22 lead, mercury, chromium, cadmium, polyvinyl chloride 23 and beryllium. An average TV with a traditional 24 cathode ray tube contains as much as five to seven 25 pounds of lead, and an average computer terminal 10 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 contains four pounds of lead, as well as smaller 3 amounts of mercury and cadmium. 4 The improper disposal of this type of 5 waste, therefore, poses a threat to human health and 6 the environment. Indeed, according to the United 7 States EPA, as much as 70 percent of the heavy 8 metals contained in landfills, and this from someone 9 who grew up in the shadow of a landfill and knows 10 what it's like coming from Staten Island, the metals 11 contained in landfills, including lead, mercury, 12 cadmium originate from electronic waste, 70 percent 13 if not more. And of course the incineration of this 14 material and the folly of that, I think is 15 self-explanatory. 16 The City of New York has been a 17 leader of recycling. Many of us believe that 18 recycling only works if you're serious about it, and 19 we propose a serious bill for a very, very serious 20 issue. 21 Talking about serious bills, the 22 prime sponsor of this bill is just such a fellow and 23 I'd like to introduce all of our colleagues. We have 24 Oliver Koppell from the Bronx, Jim Gennaro from 25 Queens, Maria del Carmen Arroyo from the Bronx, 11 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Jessica Lappin from Manhattan, Leroy Comrie from 3 Queens, David Yassky from Brooklyn, and finally that 4 serious bill I spoke of, I would like to have him 5 give us some words on this, the leader in this 6 effort, in this City and across this country, 7 Council Member William DeBlasio. 8 COUNCIL MEMBER DeBLASIO: Thank you 9 very much, Mr. Chairman. Now, I can't tell any jokes 10 because your portrayed me as serious. So, I'll do my 11 best to live up to your expectations. 12 I think the Chair has covered the 13 vast majority of the substance, I just want to refer 14 to a couple of quick points, and one is, we heard 15 people say, well, wouldn't it be better if this type 16 of issue was better addressed federally, and I think 17 we'd all love that to happen and I think we've also 18 seen over the years how slow Washington is to act 19 and we're in the age now where cities and states 20 often lead efforts to change our society for the 21 better. And Washington slowly follows the example 22 over time. So, it's abundantly clear that Washington 23 has had many opportunities to act on this issue, but 24 thank God the number of states around the country 25 didn't wait and took action. 12 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 We're going to hear from folks from 3 Minnesota and Connecticut in particular today, and 4 we want to thank very much those representatives for 5 being here. 6 You know, I admire and appreciate the 7 efforts of Assemblyman Colton to get this done at 8 the State level, and I don't envy anyone who tries 9 to navigate the Albany reality and he is admirable 10 and we're going to work very hard with him to get it 11 done on a State level but I think we would all 12 agree, nothing would help us get this done in New 13 York State more than passing this bill in our 14 largest City in this State. 15 So, I just want to say, this will 16 have such a profound impact on the environment. It 17 will send a message all across the country, it will 18 help other efforts around the country. It's also 19 something our constituents want. I can't tell you 20 how many times I hear from people the frustration at 21 the inability to recycle these items productively, 22 and I think it really pains people to think about 23 them ending up harming our environment, and they 24 want a positive solution. 25 And to the credit of the 13 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 manufacturers, a lot of them are doing it already, 3 and we have some really wonderful models to work 4 from. 5 Finally, I just want to say, the 6 effort that's been put in here is extraordinary. 7 Starting with Chair McMahon, who spent a huge amount 8 of time and energy on this issue, but when the 9 history is written of this very important 10 legislation, this gentleman here, Carmen Cognetta, 11 is going to get a lot of the credit because I have 12 never seen someone work harder on a single piece of 13 legislation than he has had to juggle it with many 14 other pieces as well, and really as someone who has 15 guided us throughout. I want to thank Jean Weinberg 16 from my staff who has put in countless hours, the 17 two of them put together an amazing effort to bring 18 in everyone. You know, we've relied immensely on the 19 advocates in particular, NRDC, but we have also 20 talked with so many representatives of industry and 21 heard concerns, and I think the Chair pointed out a 22 number of areas in which the bill has been modified 23 to respond to those concerns. 24 So, for a long time, well over a 25 year, there has been an ongoing dialogue with all 14 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 players to listen and try and find ways to continue 3 to refine the bill but always stayed true to the 4 mission of protecting our environment, and setting a 5 standard that hopefully the rest of the country will 6 pursue as well. 7 So, Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, 8 for all you've done to make this possible, and we 9 look forward to today's testimony. 10 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, 11 Council Member DeBlasio. And I do want to underscore 12 a point that you made that the final result here, 13 whatever it is, and we will know that soon, people 14 cannot complain that they did not have an 15 opportunity to have their interests heard, and that 16 this has really been a great effort by the Speaker, 17 her staff, your staff, of course the man you 18 mentioned, Carmen Cognetta, Dan Avery, who we miss, 19 and members of Commissioner Doherty's staff as well, 20 and the Mayor's Office. 21 So, there's been a lot of dialogue 22 and we are trying to come up with a product that is 23 the best and takes as much of those considerations, 24 or those concerns into consideration as possible. 25 Our first panel of witnesses are from 15 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 the New York City Department of Sanitation. They are 3 Robert Lange, the Director of the Bureau of Waste 4 Prevention, Reuse and Recycling, and Robert Orlin, 5 who is Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs, and I 6 just want to say, you know, if you could take a 7 message back to the Commissioner, many Mayors and 8 many Sanitation Commissioners have grappled with the 9 issue in New York City of how to deal with snow 10 storms, but I think that the solution that you guys 11 came up with today was probably the best. So, it is 12 certainly a great day for the Mayor and the 13 Sanitation Commissioner, because in my neighborhood, 14 I woke up, the snow was all removed, and that's 15 fantastic work. 16 So, gentlemen, you have the floor. As 17 always, thank you for coming. 18 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Thank you. 19 I'll pass on your kind words to Commissioner 20 Doherty. 21 Good afternoon, Chairman McMahon and 22 members of the Committee on Sanitation and Solid 23 Waste Management. I am Robert Orlin, Deputy 24 Commissioner for Legal Affairs for the New York City 25 Department of Sanitation. 16 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 With me today is Robert Lange, 3 Director for the Bureau of Waste Prevention, 4 Recycling and Reuse for the Department. 5 I am here to testify on behalf of 6 Commissioner Doherty and the Department on Intro. 7 No. 104-A. The Department of Sanitation supports the 8 creation of a comprehensive and realistic electronic 9 waste management collection system that offers 10 convenience to City residents, and promotes safe and 11 environmentally sound handling of certain electronic 12 items. 13 Currently, there is no national or 14 Statewide system in place for the reclamation of 15 electronic waste generated from all consumers in New 16 York City. 17 In 2006, after completing an 18-month 18 waste characterization study, the Department 19 determined that approximately 24,000 tons of 20 electronic waste is disposed of in the City 21 annually. 22 Since it is expected that the amount 23 of electronic waste will continue to increase over 24 the next decade, we agree that a program for 25 removing certain electronic items from the City's 17 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 solid waste management system is necessary. 3 Since the Department last testified 4 on this subject before this Committee 14 months ago, 5 the Administration and the Council have been working 6 together to negotiate and develop appropriate 7 electronic waste legislation for New York City. We 8 are close to reaching agreement on a bill, however, 9 the bill that is the subject of this hearing 10 contains mandatory collection performance standards, 11 which both the Department and the Administration 12 oppose. 13 Intro. 104-A requires each 14 manufacturer to recycle a certain percentage share 15 of its covered electronic equipment, based on the 16 manufacturer's average annual sales of electronic 17 equipment in the City during the previous three 18 calendar years, as reported by weight. Beginning 19 with a minimum collection standard of 25 percent by 20 July 1, 2012, and increasing incrementally to 65 21 percent by July 1, 2018. 22 The performance standards contained 23 in the bill have been randomly set, and do not rely 24 on any meaningful data from the industry to support 25 imposing such standards. 18 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Currently, the Department has no 3 reliable data on the rates that consumers dispose of 4 electronic equipment. According to manufacturers, 5 computers are replaced every seven to ten years, and 6 televisions are replaced at an even slower rate at 7 approximately every 12 to 15 years. 8 Based upon this limited information, 9 the Department is not able to estimate how much of a 10 specific manufacturer's electronic waste will be 11 offered for return during a one-, two-, or 12 three-year period. 13 Since the City does not presently 14 have sufficient information to ascertain, whether 15 the recycling performance standards set forth in 16 Intro. 104-A are achievable, we firmly believe that 17 it is inappropriate to promulgate such standards at 18 this time. 19 Stated simply, government should not 20 be setting arbitrary mandates. 21 The bill makes the manufacturers' 22 responsible for the actions or inactions of its 23 consumers. It is potentially problematic to hold 24 manufacturers accountable for the return rate of 25 consumers. Manufacturers may use their best efforts 19 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 to collect electronic equipment, and yet may still 3 fall short of the percentage mandates because 4 consumers do not return such equipment at the rates 5 anticipated by the spill. 6 To penalize the manufacturers and 7 such circumstances on an annual basis, with 8 penalties of $50,000, each percentage point a 9 manufacturer falls below the performance standard 10 would not be fair. 11 The Department has its own experience 12 with recycling mandates. Despite everyone's best 13 intentions, when the City's recycling law, Local Law 14 19, was created, performance mandates were 15 established that in hindsight were recognized to the 16 unachievable. We should avoid such a result again. 17 Furthermore, under Intro. 104-A, a 18 manufacturer is required to collect every piece of 19 covered electronic equipment, that it has assembled, 20 manufactured, sold or imported, and that has been 21 offered for return by any person in the City. 22 The manufacturer is further 23 responsible for informing and educating consumers 24 and businesses of its Electronic Equipment Return 25 Program. Should the manufacturer refuse to accept a 20 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 piece of covered electronic equipment, the 3 manufacturer is subject to a monetary penalty. Since 4 manufacturers are required to accept every piece of 5 covered electronic equipment that they create and 6 that is offered for return, further mandating that 7 manufacturers meet performance standard at this time 8 is unnecessary. 9 Performance standards for recycling 10 electronic waste should only be considered after 11 further study in data collection. The passage of 12 time and the collection of accurate data will allow 13 the Administration, the Council and the Department 14 to determine how the program is functioning and 15 whether performance standards are necessary. 16 While we oppose the inclusion of 17 performance standards, the Department supports the 18 general policy of Intro. 104-A, as it creates a 19 comprehensive and sound electronic waste management 20 system for New York City. 21 Intro. 104-A places the 22 responsibility of safely handling this part of 23 electronic equipment on the manufacturer. By 24 allowing manufacturers to develop their own 25 reclamation program, the bill provides flexibilities 21 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 to manufacturers to develop a system that best meets 3 their needs, including cooperative arrangement to 4 other manufacturers for the collection and recycling 5 of electronic waste. 6 The provisions of 104-A will ensure 7 that the public is well informed of the 8 manufacturer's electronic recycling program, and 9 that the returned electronic waste was handled in an 10 environmentally sound manner. 11 Manufacturers must develop an 12 informational program to assist consumers with 13 returning their electronic equipment, including an 14 internet website and toll free telephone number. 15 The bill also requires manufacturers 16 to include information on their plans for the 17 disposition of electronic waste, including 18 anticipated end markets and electronic recyclers, 19 expected to be used by the manufacturers. 20 Manufacturers must also certify that 21 their collection, handling and recycling or reuse of 22 electronic equipment complies with all local, state, 23 federal and international laws and regulations. 24 These provisions will help ensure 25 that electronic equipment will be handled in a way 22 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 that is safe for the environment. 3 Additionally, the bill mandates that 4 manufacturers meet stringent annual reporting 5 requirements, which will allow the Department to 6 better understand and analyze recycling and return 7 rates for electronic equipment. 8 In sum, although the Department and 9 the Administration support the underlying intent of 10 this legislation that creates a comprehensive 11 electronic waste management system in the City, we 12 oppose the inclusion of the current performance 13 standard component of this bill. 14 Thank you for the opportunity to 15 testify today, and we'll now be happy to answer any 16 questions that you may have. 17 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, 18 Deputy Commissioner. 19 So, I think it would be a shame if we 20 can't reach agreement on this with the 21 Administration and make this part of the dual legacy 22 of the Mayor and the Council toward the goals of 23 sustainability. So, let's work towards that. 24 The Administration supports the bill 25 except for the performance standards; is that 23 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 correct? 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: That's 4 correct. 5 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Have I got that? 6 But the performance standards are not in effect, and 7 we pushed it back for three years; don't you think 8 that that's a reasonable time for the companies to 9 settle in, to get it done and have something in 10 place that's workable? 11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I think 12 three years, you know, should give companies enough 13 time to set up a system where we disagree, is that I 14 don't think we should be setting mandates now based 15 on incomplete data. I think we don't know what the 16 return rate will be. 17 For example, my wife and I are 18 thinking of buying a new computer. We're not going 19 to return our old computer, we're going to put it in 20 our kids' room. So, we don't really have data, no 21 data is presented to us, which shows, you know, what 22 the return rate for every new piece of equipment 23 purchased is. 24 And I think it's a mistake, I think 25 it's a mistake to place mandates in the bill right 24 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 now, and then if they turn out to be wrong, say some 3 future Council will address that. 4 We had that happen with Local Law 19 5 where a court has held that the mandates were not 6 achievable. So, I think the better solution is, if 7 mandates are to be included, I think it would be 8 better for us to get some data about how much 9 electronic equipment is sold in the City, get some 10 real information and return rates, and then it could 11 be considered whether it's necessary to include them 12 in the bill or not. 13 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: So, if the bill 14 said -- I guess what we can't agree on is the 15 question of if they are necessary. We feel they are 16 necessary, and we have searched the globe of no 17 recycling law that's effective and is followed, 18 unless it has some sort of performance standard, 19 some sort of peak to it. 20 So, are you saying, if we pass a bill 21 that said, okay, here is the bill and in three years 22 the City will promulgate performance standards, that 23 that would be acceptable? Or you just oppose the 24 performance standards completely? 25 And let me just say, Robert, in your 25 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 testimony there is a lot of comment on this, but it 3 always seems to be taken from the perspective of the 4 manufacturer. 5 As you answer my question of whether 6 or not any type of standards would be acceptable, 7 also if you could couch it in, you know, we share 8 the goal of getting these materials out of the waste 9 stream, if not standards, how do we mandate that it 10 happens? 11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I agree we 12 do share the same goal of removing this equipment 13 from the waste stream. As far as whether in three 14 years we would agree to performance standards, all I 15 can say is that's something the Administration and 16 the Department would be happy to discuss with the 17 Council. 18 I think the bill can have teeth 19 without mandates, the current bill requires that 20 electronic manufacturers accept every piece of 21 equipment that is returned to them. I think we can 22 include a convenience provision in the bill that 23 would make it, you know, make it that the 24 manufacturers have to come up with a return program 25 that's convenient for New York City residents. And 26 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 that would obviously be different than it would be 3 for some other locals. 4 So, while performance standards may 5 be helpful, I don't agree that they're always 6 critical. 7 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: All we're 8 looking for is help. We like the helpful part, and 9 the fact that -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to jump 10 in. 11 If the performance standards can be 12 helpful, so now we're really not agreeing -- 13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Well, I 14 said they may be helpful. 15 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: May be helpful. 16 I'm trying to point out that perhaps the 17 disagreement between the Council and the 18 Administration is not insurmountable. Clearly, 19 performance standards may be helpful, and we don't 20 see how they can be so harmful, and we need to get 21 this bill up and running as soon as possible, 22 because the one thing you don't mention is that we 23 anticipate next year this incredible flood of 24 televisions to come into the waste stream because of 25 the conversion to high definition TV, and what are 27 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 we going to do? If we don't have some standards in 3 here, if we don't get this up and running and don't 4 capture this material, isn't it all going to end up 5 in the incinerator or landfill? 6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Again, I 7 disagree that we should be setting standards now 8 without knowing what is realistic and what is not 9 realistic. I don't think government should be doing 10 that. The bill right now mandates that every 11 electronic manufacturer accept every piece of 12 equipment that's returned. There's steep penalties 13 for not doing so. And you know, there are strict 14 reporting requirements that we expect to be adhered 15 to. So, I again go back, we shouldn't be setting 16 standards without knowing what is reasonable and 17 what is not reasonable. 18 And I think you would agree that if 19 we set standards now and they turn out to be 20 unrealistic, we don't know what a future Council 21 will do with those mandates, and I think the worst 22 thing we can do is mandates that are not achievable. 23 So, yes, I think going back to your 24 earlier question, I think the Administration and the 25 Department would be willing to sit down with the 28 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Council and talk about when and if performance 3 mandates should be established. I just don't think 4 they should be set now without proper information. 5 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: But other 6 states, the other jurisdictions that we mentioned in 7 our opening, do have mandates set out from the 8 inception. Minnesota, for instance. Can they all be 9 wrong? 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I'm only 11 aware of one state. I'm only aware that one state 12 has mandates, Minnesota. The other seven or eight 13 states, I do not -- 14 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Well, if it's 15 good enough for Minnesota, at least for the City. 16 But I mean, does the existence of performance 17 standards make this bill flawed in your mind? 18 Fatally flawed in your mind? Or is it something you 19 think could be better, but overall the good 20 outweighs the bad? 21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I think it 22 makes the bill flawed. And let me address the 23 penalty provision. 24 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: How flawed? Like 25 uncomfortably flawed? 29 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Seriously 3 flawed. 4 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Or fatally 5 flawed. 6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Seriously 7 flawed. 8 The penalty provision in the bill 9 right now provides that if the manufacturer doesn't 10 meet the performance standards, it will be penalized 11 $50,000 for each point it falls below the 12 performance standard. 13 So, it's conceivable that there could 14 be a very small manufacturer that sells maybe 500 15 computers in the City on an annual basis. It falls 16 20 to 30 points below, you know, for the sale to be 17 pretty limited, that it falls 30 points below the 65 18 percent performance standard, it could be hit with a 19 $1.5 million fine. 20 So, the performance standard right 21 now has no, you know, it doesn't distinguish between 22 a manufacturer that sells a lot of goods in New York 23 City and a manufacturer that only sells a small 24 amount. 25 I think we can all agree that it's 30 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 not the intent, I hope it's not the intent of the 3 Council to try to penalize a very small manufacturer 4 with a $1.5 million fine annually, so I think that 5 provision in particular needs to be changed, because 6 it doesn't take into account the volume of goods 7 sold in the City. 8 And I think that just goes to show 9 that we need to understand this better before we 10 impose performance standards. I think we need some 11 data, and I think in a couple of years we'll have 12 some data. 13 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Well, I think, 14 again, that's why we gave more time to be 15 implemented. And as I said, I don't think that -- 16 even if I were to assume your position on this, that 17 it would render the bill as it exists fatally 18 flawed. 19 I am hopeful that this bill could be 20 added to the list of the Drug Administration's great 21 accomplishments regarding 2030 and the environment, 22 and sustainability and so I ask you to reconsider 23 that position or at least give us something that has 24 performance standards and meets the sort of 25 technical uncertaintees that you see in it. 31 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Yes, we're 3 hopeful, too. We would like to pass an electronic 4 waste bill. So, you know, as I said, we're happy to 5 talk with the Council. 6 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Okay. 7 Council Member DeBlasio. 8 COUNCIL MEMBER DeBLASIO: Just a brief 9 comment, thank you. 10 Mr. Chairman, once again you've asked 11 the questions I would have liked to ask and I 12 appreciate that. And I would just say I think the 13 Council justifiably feels that there are areas where 14 the Administration has taken the lead, and I think 15 we've been consistently supportive and positive 16 towards the Administration when that happens. I 17 think there are some areas where the Council has 18 moved policy before it became an area the 19 Administration focused on, and I think that this 20 problem has existed in the City for quite awhile, 21 and that this legislation is the realistic and 22 material way to deal with the problem. 23 I'm not sure we would be having this 24 discussion if it weren't for the fact the Council 25 took the lead. I also think it's a question of how 32 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 to change our society. I think we have ample 3 examples of where amorphis goals do not achieve an 4 effect. And I think for a lot of people in this 5 audience and a lot of people in our communities, 6 there is a sense of urgency here. This is not 7 something to be debated for more months and years. 8 There is a sense that this is a real actual impact 9 on our environment we're discussing. I think there 10 is tremendous concern when you look across the whole 11 spectrum of environmental policy that in our country 12 is lagging behind, and it's having a very, very 13 negative effect on our lives and our children's 14 lives. So, I just want to put that in perspective. 15 I'm not disrespecting your particular concerns. 16 Although I will say that we have talked them through 17 with the Administration fairly well, but I just hope 18 you understand why the legislative branch has chosen 19 to make this a priority and why we feel urgency 20 about this. 21 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 22 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, 23 Council member. You're absolutely correct. And you 24 know, you gave a historical example of the City's 25 primary recycling law, and there were flaws in the 33 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 performance standards there, however, I think you 3 would agree imperfect or not, some 18 years later, 4 thank God New York City has a recycling law, it's 5 something that, you know, even this Mayor and the 6 Commissioner, rightly so, and former Council Speaker 7 Peter Vallone consider one of the crowning 8 achievement of work between the Council and the 9 Administration on the environment. So, if we're 10 going to look at that example, then I think 11 certainly we can say, okay, it's less than perfect. 12 But it's certainly moving in the right direction. 13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I think 14 the recycling law in New York City is very 15 important. I think mandating that the Department 16 pick up every piece of metal, glass, plastic and 17 paper that, you know, someone puts out is sufficient 18 without the mandate, and I think similarly for 19 electronic waste, that's also, you know, the same 20 situation. 21 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: And so you're 22 comparing that mandatory collecting with the 23 mandatory take-back? 24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Well, again, so 34 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 there we've got that, and we can still work with or 3 without imperfect performance standards, but we 4 believe that the performance standards in a form 5 that's meaningful is important. 6 Okay, so, Council Member Koppell. 7 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Thank you, 8 Mr. Chairman. I hate to be sort of a focus on one 9 aspect that arises out of my experience of 10 recycling, but as you may know, I was the prime 11 sponsor of what's known as the "Bottle Bill," which 12 has resulted in recycling of over 100 billion 13 bottles and cans in the State of New York in the 25 14 years since we've passed that in Albany, and I'm 15 concerned about incentives because industry at the 16 time when we passed the Bottle Bill wanted to have 17 kind of a law without incentives, a law to clean up 18 bottles and cans but not to incentivize consumers to 19 recycle them, and I don't think that would have 20 worked. 21 So, let me talk here, is it your 22 understanding that this proposed bill, I know you've 23 worked on it, would prohibit a manufacturer from 24 putting a deposit as a way of achieving the 25 performance standards that are in the bill? 35 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Is your 3 question whether there should be a deposit in 4 advance? 5 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Whether the 6 legislation would allow manufacturers as a way of 7 achieving performance standards to put a deposit on 8 the equipment which would be refundable when the 9 equipment was returned. 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: The bill 11 right now for regular consumers prohibits a fee or a 12 surcharge at the point of sale. It does allow for a 13 fee for companies or businesses with more than 50 14 people. 15 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: I also 16 believe the bill has a prohibition on putting the 17 electronic waste into the waste stream anymore, so 18 the City wouldn't be picking this up. 19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Right now 20 the date is July 1, 2010. 21 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Two separate 22 questions: Isn't there a danger, given the fact you 23 can't dispose of them in the garbage or on the curb, 24 and you now don't have any incentive necessarily to 25 give it back to the manufacturer, because they 36 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 haven't put a deposit on it, that these will be 3 dumped and will have a serious dumping problem of 4 electronic equipment that no longer can be put into 5 the garbage or in the way stream. 6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I don't 7 think we can assume there will be a major dumping 8 problem. Obviously it's something that we need to be 9 concerned about. But, you know, that does go to show 10 that in the Department's review, the electronic 11 recycling plan will have to make sure that it's as 12 convenient as possible for residents in New York 13 City, and that is something that is different, you 14 know, what is convenient in New York City is 15 obviously not the same as it would be in a more 16 rural location. 17 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Why would you 18 oppose, or why would you oppose some form of 19 deposit? Let me just ask it as a predicate. You know 20 that we have a deposit on tires that you pay when 21 you buy tires and you don't need to pay it again if 22 you bring the tires back and buy new tires; why do 23 you propose a deposit on this electronic equipment, 24 which would be refundable at the time you dispose of 25 it in one form or another, maybe directly, maybe 37 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 with a certificate? 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: In working 4 with the Council it was the Administration's 5 Departments and Counsel's view that we did not want 6 the consumer to have to pay for the recycling. We 7 thought that should be the manufacturer's 8 responsibility. And that belief was shared by all. 9 As far as, you know, getting money 10 back at the time it's recycled, I guess it's 11 something that could be considered, but we thought 12 the better solution was not to include an advance 13 recycling fee the way some states have? 14 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: And would the 15 bill or the law if it passes prohibit the 16 manufacturers from providing incentives? Assume a 17 manufacturer, I'll call it X, not to pick a company, 18 X manufacturer says every time you give us back a 19 monitor we're give you a $10 reward, if you will, to 20 encourage achieving performance standards; is that 21 legal under the bill? 22 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: If a 23 manufacturer wants to provide some monetary sum to a 24 consumer that returns electronic equipment, that's 25 certainly not prohibited by the bill, and I assume 38 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 that would help the recycling of it. 3 That's not something that's called 4 for by the bill but it's certainly something that 5 the bill would allow, if a manufacturer wanted to do 6 that. 7 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: And if the 8 manufacturer did that just let's say for New York, 9 would that run afoul of that provision that says you 10 can't charge anything for recycling? They built it 11 into the price, or the price in New York was a 12 little bit more than in other states, would we run 13 afoul of that prohibition then? 14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I don't 15 think that would be a charge. There would be money 16 being returned to the consumer, so the consumer, 17 instead of being charged, would be, you know, 18 gaining money. So that would not be prohibited. 19 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: But the 20 manufacturer might build that into its charge for 21 the equipment when sold in New York, right? Unless 22 that provision would prohibit that. That's what 23 concerns me. 24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Well, yes, 25 the provision does preclude a specified advance fee, 39 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 and what you're talking about, I guess, is something 3 that could potentially be included. That's something 4 that we'd have to address, if the situation actually 5 arises. 6 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Mr. Chairman, 7 I think that there is a serious issue here in terms 8 of incentives. I personally favor the establishment 9 of performance standards. I think they're necessary. 10 Because I think otherwise it's unlikely we're going 11 to do anything significant. But I do also think that 12 if you do performance standards, you have to some 13 way find some way to incentivize people to give them 14 back. And some people will do it voluntarily. I have 15 no doubt about that. But I don't think the vast 16 majority of people are likely to. I hate to say 17 that. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but that's my 18 view, and I think this is something we need to look 19 at. 20 I strongly oppose taking performance 21 standards out, but I do think we need to do 22 something to help the manufacturer get these items 23 back. 24 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Okay, we will 25 look at that. We want to call on Council Member 40 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Yassky. I want to remind my colleagues that we have 3 30 witnesses who want to testify. 4 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: Yes. I thank 5 you for that, Mr. Chair, and I'll be brief. 6 I don't want to go on at length about 7 it, but I do think that Council Member Koppell's 8 suggestion about at least permitting a deposit 9 scheme is really worth pursuing, and I have not been 10 part of your discussions, so I don't know what 11 discussion you've had already. But, you know, it has 12 worked so successfully. It would seem to me if a 13 manufacturer wanted to do that, we should not 14 preclude it. So, I just wage to that. 15 I mean, if a manufacturer today, if 16 they put on their, you know, the TV, you know, if 17 they're marketing materials, it's $600 plus a $10 18 New York City recycling, you know, $10 extra in New 19 York because we charge for recycling, because we 20 have a recycling mandate, that's just the way they 21 choose to present it to consumers, I assume that the 22 Department wouldn't say that runs afoul of this law 23 that is of charge. 24 I mean, if they have a $610 price, 25 and they say it's $600 plus $10 for New York City 41 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 because in New York City we have recycling, you 3 couldn't object to that, could you? 4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OLIN: I think 5 that would be inconsistent with the law as currently 6 drafted. 7 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: Well, all 8 right, then I really do think Council Member Koppell 9 has a point, and you ought to think about that. 10 My only question is this: I heard 11 what you said about performance standards, to be 12 clear I support the performance standards. I hear 13 your point about, you know, subjecting people to 14 penalties, something that they have no control over, 15 what in your estimate, if you didn't have the 16 performance standards, how much do you predict would 17 be recycled and returned? 18 I mean, these performance standards, 19 if it I get it, go from 25 to 65 percent of kind of 20 what's out there that you should be getting back; do 21 you have a guess? 22 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Right now 23 the Department really has no reliable information on 24 which to assess what the return rate would be. 25 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: So, if we 42 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 didn't have performance standards it could be that 3 you'd get a one percent return? 4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Well, no. 5 Right now there is a mandatory provision that each 6 manufacturer take back any piece of equipment 7 offered for return. So, you have a mandatory program 8 in place. The only thing the performance standards 9 do is they set a mandate for something we don't know 10 is achievable or not achievable. 11 I think, you know, in two or three 12 years we'll have data on sales figures in New York 13 for computers and TVs, plus some information on 14 return rate, and I think will be much easier to 15 assess whether performance standards are necessary, 16 and if they are necessary, what they should be. 17 I mean, that's the problem right now. 18 We don't really have reliable information on which 19 to mandate at this current time performance 20 standards. 21 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: Do you think 22 -- 23 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: No, we're -- 24 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: I'll let it go 25 at this -- 43 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: -- To this issue 3 the Commissioner from Minnesota will tell us how 4 their performance standards are working, so we'll 5 get on that. 6 Go ahead. 7 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: Do you believe 8 that performance standards would increase the amount 9 of recycling that takes place? 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I don't 11 know. 12 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: Really? I feel 13 that's not totally credible. I mean -- 14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Let's -- 15 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: Now, you may 16 say at the cost of unfair fines, but it has to be -- 17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Let's 18 assume that the 25 percent is awfully low, then they 19 may stop taking stuff back after 25 percent. We 20 really don't know. We really don't know. I certainly 21 don't know. I have no information. Maybe Bob has 22 additional information, but based on information 23 that I've been shown, what I've read, I don't know. 24 COUNCIL MEMBER YASSKY: Okay, thank 25 you, Mr. Chair. 44 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: And lastly, 3 Council Member Lappin. 4 COUNCIL MEMBER LAPPIN: Thank you, Mr. 5 Chairman. 6 I want to agree with the Chair and 7 the prime sponsor about the urgency of this bill. I 8 know that next year people will be buying new TVs, I 9 bet there are New Yorkers who will go out this week 10 and buy new TVs to watch the Giants beat Green Bay 11 in HD, and they're not going to know what to do with 12 their old equipment. Even if they wanted to recycle 13 it, they're not going to be able to. 14 I have two questions. One about data, 15 because you mentioned it extensively in your 16 testimony that there is no data, and we're going to 17 hear what's happened in Minnesota. But aren't there 18 other companies that are already doing this? Don't 19 we have data from them? 20 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: There are 21 many companies that have commenced electronic waste 22 programs. The only one I know about, I believe Dell 23 says they're returning. They're getting returned at 24 about 12 percent of their computers. 25 COUNCIL MEMBER LAPPIN: Apple, HP? 45 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 They're going to testify, okay. 3 So, you haven't collected that data 4 from the private companies? 5 MR. LANGE: We have self-reported data 6 which is not terribly valuable. 7 COUNCIL MEMBER LAPPIN: Okay. 8 And the last thing I think, Deputy 9 Commissioner, you talked about the -- you compared 10 the provision where the manufacturer would have to 11 take back whatever was presented to what happens in 12 the City, but I wanted to just discuss that for a 13 moment, because mandatory collection where the City 14 has to take the recyclables that I put on my curb is 15 very different than a manufacturer being able to 16 come up with their own plan, it could be one drop-in 17 center anywhere in the City, and then if I know 18 about it, I have to schlep in the subway, in the 19 car, in the cab, wherever, with my equipment, to 20 that center. So, to me that's a very different 21 concept. 22 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: I would 23 agree that if the legislation worked the way you 24 just suggested, it wouldn't be particularly 25 effective. 46 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 That's why I think it's important 3 that the law include a convenience requirement that 4 the plan be convenient for New York City residents, 5 and therefore, the type of plan that you just 6 described would not be approved by the Department. 7 Certainly sending a box to a consumer 8 and having some commercial freight carrier or the 9 Post Office pick up that box is convenient. 10 There may be other ways that 11 manufacturers could come up with that are 12 convenient. I think we are certainly encouraged. We 13 know that recently three large manufacturers joined 14 in an electronic waste management recycling company. 15 I believe it's Panasonic, Toshiba and Sharp. And 16 other companies have recently joined as well. So, we 17 hope as a result of this legislation other companies 18 will join together and, you know, make it more 19 efficient to come up with a plan convenient, truly 20 convenient for New York City residents. 21 COUNCIL MEMBER LAPPIN: I think that 22 the concept of convenience is very different from, 23 if you have a target then you have to be more 24 aggressive, as opposed to, well, we'll take it if we 25 have to, if they bring it to us. And whether you 47 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 make it convenient for them to do that, because you 3 have to, I think is very different. 4 You don't think there is a difference 5 between incentivizing them, as opposed to saying, 6 okay, we'll take it because we have to? 7 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ORLIN: Well, I 8 think incentivizing on actual data would be 9 something that is worth considering. 10 The Department of Sanitation doesn't 11 have the data now to set mandates without them being 12 random and arbitrary, and I think that's what 13 government should be doing. In two or three years, 14 maybe we'll have more data and it will be 15 appropriate to set such mandates. 16 COUNCIL MEMBER LAPPIN: Okay, thank 17 you, Mr. Chairman. 18 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: And, again, that 19 data, providing that data is part of the mandate in 20 the bill. 21 Okay, as always, a pleasure, 22 gentlemen. Thank you for coming and we look forward 23 to continuing to work with you on this and other 24 important issues. And I'm optimistic that we will 25 resolve it some way. 48 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Okay, next panel is Commissioner 3 Victoria Reinhardt, from Minnesota, from Ramsey 4 County, Minnesota. And Patricia Widtlitz from the 5 Connecticut General Assembly. She is from Hartford 6 Connecticut, and Assemblymember Bill Colton, who 7 hails all the way from the Borough of Brooklyn, New 8 York State Assemblyman. 9 We always start with the person who 10 traveled the furthest, and I think that's you, 11 Commissioner Reinhardt. 12 When you speak to us, the light has 13 to be off for the loud speaker to be on. 14 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: Thank you. 15 Good afternoon, and I am really pleased to be here, 16 Chairman McMahon, Council Member DeBlasio and 17 members of the Committee. 18 I am Dr. Victoria Reinhardt. I am an 19 elected County Commissioner in Ramsey County, 20 Minnesota. 21 Ramsey County, half of it is the 22 State Capital, St. Paul, so the twin cities of St. 23 Paul and Minneapolis, I like to say them in that 24 order, are the major metropolitan area. 25 I have held a number of leadership 49 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 positions, environmental leadership positions, 3 specifically around electronic waste legislation, at 4 the National Association of Counties, the 5 Association of Minnesota Counties and the 6 Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Coordinating 7 Board. 8 I helped to develop and gain support 9 for the passage of Minnesota's Manufacturer 10 responsibility electronic waste legislation in 2007. 11 The linchpin really of that 12 legislation were the performance standards. We have 13 performance standards of .6 pounds for every pound 14 sold in the State of Minnesota for 2008. In the 15 second tier that escalates to .8 pounds for every 16 pound sold. 17 There was a great deal of discussion. 18 We had very much the same discussion that I've 19 already heard in the Council Chambers today in 20 Minnesota, and it took us many years to come up with 21 the compromise that we did with the performance 22 standards. And as you can imagine, not everyone was 23 happy. In fact, they had a lot of controversy over 24 the performance standards and other aspects of the 25 bill, and a letter was sent on May 2nd of 2007 to 50 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Governor Tim Polenti from the Consumer Electronics 3 Association outlining their displeasure with certain 4 parts of this bill. 5 And I would like to quote from that 6 letter because it says, "Simply setting the 7 recycling target multiplier at .33 instead of .6 8 pounds for each pound of product sold would have 9 largely eliminated this concern." 10 I really do believe that the .25 11 standard that you have is very doable. 12 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: So, just so 13 we're clear, yours was .6? 14 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: .6. 15 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: .6. Here the 16 group of manufacturers are saying we can live with 17 .33? 18 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: That's 19 correct. 20 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: And ours is .25? 21 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: That's 22 correct. 23 Minnesota has diverse geographic 24 location, obviously for its population. We have the 25 urban areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul, we have 51 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 suburban areas, we have rural areas. 3 Clearly the best, or closest to New 4 York City would be the urban collection, and those 5 collections range from clean-up days to collection 6 events to curbside collection in the City of 7 Minneapolis. 8 Earlier when they were talking about 9 data, in fact, we have data from Hanopin County 10 where they had been collecting it free of charge to 11 Hanopin County residents for a number of years, and 12 that was part of the information that the Minnesota 13 Pollution Control Agency put together to determine 14 whether or not the .6 and as I said in the second 15 tier the .8 were achievable within Minnesota. And, 16 so, we have a lot of data about what is being 17 collected and what we believe would be available for 18 collection. 19 It is estimated by the pollution 20 control agency that the e-waste that would be 21 available for collection in '08 is over 27 million 22 pounds in Minnesota. 23 We also had a ban that was in place 24 for electronic waste. That ban was passed in 2003, 25 and actually went into effect one year before the 52 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 legislation with the infrastructure. 3 So that was one of the reasons that 4 it was imperative that it pass in 2007. That with 5 the digital conversion of television really put an 6 emphasis on getting this done now and getting it 7 done right. 8 The issue of why with any legislation 9 clearly comes up, and I think that your Council has 10 done a good job of explaining that. But what it 11 really comes down to is the public health and 12 environmental concern. Removing the toxic hazardous 13 materials like lead, mercury, cadmium, bromeated or 14 bromimated flame retardants and PCBs from the 15 environment is incredibly important. But there is 16 also the economic aspect of this, and that is to 17 deal with the growing class of collection, 18 transportation and recycling, and really feeling 19 that you should not rely solely on government to pay 20 these costs, and in fact having the manufacturer be 21 responsible makes sense from a taxpayer standpoint 22 as well. 23 Again, I am here in support of the 24 New York City Council's legislation. I believe that 25 it is fair and balanced and achievable and will 53 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 result in a better environment for all. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you very 5 much, Commissioner. 6 Representative Widlitz. 7 STATE REPRESENTATIVE WIDLITZ: Thank 8 you, Chairman McMahon and members of the Committee 9 on Sanitation and Solid Waste Management. 10 I really appreciate the opportunity 11 to be here today to testify in support of your 12 proposed New York City E-waste Bill. I am State 13 Representative Patricia Widlitz from the 98th 14 District in Connecticut representing the Shore Line 15 towns of Gilford and Branford. 16 I was also fortunate enough to be the 17 main sponsor of the bill that was recently passed in 18 Connecticut. Our Governor M. Jody Rell, signed it on 19 July 6th and this became effective on October 1st. 20 The new law creates a mandatory recycling program 21 for discarded covered electronic devices. Under the 22 law the manufacturers must participate in a program 23 to finance the transportation and the recycling of 24 these designated products. And the municipalities, 25 and this was part of your discussion earlier, 54 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 municipalities must provide to residents a cost-free 3 and convenient location for the collection of these 4 discarded products. 5 That was the main part of our 6 discussion, that if people don't have a convenient 7 place within their own municipality to bring these 8 computers and televisions to, and it doesn't cost 9 them anything, then they are more likely to get rid 10 of them in that fashion. 11 The EPA has called electronic waste 12 "the nation's fastest growing category of solid 13 waste," and without a method of guaranteeing proper 14 disposal of these products, this can cause a 15 significant threat to public health and the 16 environment, as mentioned before. And the absence of 17 federal policy to regulate its disposal the states 18 are taking a leadership in addressing a solution and 19 now New York City, which I am very pleased to see. 20 Recognizing the importance of a 21 uniformed approach throughout our region, 22 Connecticut participated in an intensive process led 23 by the Council of State governments, and the 24 Northeast Recycling Council. 25 We worked with representatives of ten 55 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 northeastern states, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico 3 and Quebec. We had stakeholders from all affected 4 entities, including manufacturers, retailers, 5 recyclers, citizen organizations, and many others. 6 Actually we convened a meeting at EPA headquarters 7 here in New York in April of 2005 to try to reach a 8 consensus on an approach that would make sense for 9 the whole region. 10 What you don't want to do is have all 11 different policies that make it very difficult for 12 manufacturers. If we can have one approach to this 13 issue, I think it's not only a model for a region 14 but for the nation. 15 So, basically out of that meeting we 16 arrived at a consensus that we would support a 17 producer-based, producer responsibility-based 18 approach to the recycling. 19 As mentioned, the cathode ray tube 20 televisions and computer monitors can contain up to 21 four to eight pounds of lead and most of the new 22 flat screen models contain mercury. The plastic 23 material used to house the components often contain 24 brominated flame retardants. So, to protect the 25 public health, we really must ensure that these 56 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 products are properly handled at the end of their 3 useful lives to avoid releasing toxins into our air 4 and water. 5 To add to the urgency of taking 6 action, Congress has mandated television 7 broadcasters to cease analog broadcasting by 8 February 19th of 2009. That means the broadcasters 9 must switch from analog to digital broadcasts to 10 free up the additional spectrum for the nation's 11 first responders. 12 So, consumers who have the analog 13 televisions are likely to consider purchasing the 14 digital sets and disposing of the outdated sets. 15 This is going to be a huge amount of product that is 16 going to start coming into our solid waste system 17 and we need to take control of that. 18 Connecticut's e-waste law had 19 overwhelming legislative support. Not that it was 20 easy. It took a long time to get there and we had a 21 lot of debate, but we ended up having a unanimous 22 vote in the Senate and in the house which is hardly 23 ever a unanimous vote, 139 to 7. We are now in the 24 process of promulgating regulations for implementing 25 our bill. That's well underway. Actually, today 57 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 there was a public hearing on the draft regulations 3 to implement the bill, and we've actually brought in 4 over 30 stakeholders to help with those regulations 5 that we want to have a good product when we're going 6 forward with this. 7 Considering the density of the 8 consumer population in New York City, passage of 9 this bill has the potential to have a dramatically 10 positive impact on the environment of the entire 11 area, and to really establish New York City as the 12 leader of sound environmental policy for the region 13 and the entire nation. 14 Again, I appreciate the opportunity 15 to testify, and I look forward to hearing that the 16 vote was successful and just passed overwhelmingly. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you. 19 Assemblymember Colton. 20 ASSEMBLYMAN COLTON: Yes, thank you. I 21 would like to appreciate, express my appreciation 22 for this invitation from Council Member Michael 23 McMahon, members of the City Council, to testify at 24 today's hearing. As everyone is aware, I believe, 25 the proper management of unwanted electronic 58 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 equipment has become a major issue throughout the 3 country, and it has been one of my top priorities as 4 Chair of the Assembly Legislative Commission on 5 Solid Waste Management. And I want to really applaud 6 Council Member DeBlasio and the sponsors of this 7 electronic recycling legislation, which is being 8 considered, for their initiative in addressing this 9 important concern. I believe it is beneficial. I 10 think it is fully appropriate for the City Council 11 to establish an electronics recovery system for New 12 York City. 13 I strongly support the concept of 14 producer responsibility, which in my opinion 15 provides the fairest and most effective means of 16 properly managing the fast-growing electronic waste 17 stream. Ideally, it is most advantageous to 18 establish an electronics recycling program on a 19 federal level, but it is clear that there is no 20 immediate prospect for such federal legislation at 21 this time. 22 Meanwhile, the amount of electronic 23 products being discarded continues to grow. I 24 believe that with the conversion to digital 25 television system, it is going to grow in phenomenal 59 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 numbers, and if we do not have a system to catch 3 that electronic product before all these televisions 4 end up being released into the solid waste stream, 5 it is frankly going to be taking money away from 6 education and health care and public safety because 7 the Department of Sanitation budget is going to 8 mushroom tremendously. 9 So, I think that there is a real 10 urgency here, and I think with that urgency, I think 11 the City Council's efforts are very praiseworthy and 12 I certainly hope they will be successful. 13 Electronic equipment contains toxic 14 contaminants, such as lead and mercury and cadmium 15 and PCBs and all of these different things, which 16 when they get into our air and our water and our 17 soil cause contamination and pollution. 18 In fact, there's growing evidence 19 that where electronic discards are simply exported 20 to other countries, what is ending up happening is, 21 that they are being returned to us in the form of 22 jewelry and toys and other products which are being 23 exported back to us. 24 So, I believe we need to have an 25 effective way of recycling environmentally sound way 60 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 of recycling electronic products, and the components 3 that they have. 4 Therefore, state law makers and 5 policy-makers, including myself, have proposed 6 legislation to address electronics recovery at the 7 state level. 8 The Council of State Governments, in 9 conjunction with the Northeast Recycling Council, 10 Rhona Cohen, developed a consensus of model 11 legislation resulting from a roundtable they had two 12 years ago, which developed this consensus model. 13 This has provided a significant 14 incentive to all of the participating states to 15 encourage the passage of such legislation. In fact, 16 in addition to Minnesota and Connecticut, Maryland 17 and the State of Washington have also passed 18 producer responsibility models. 19 I have introduced two producer 20 responsibility models in the New York State 21 Legislature, both of these bills have also been 22 introduced in the Senate, by Senator Marcellino, 23 Chair of the Senate Environmental Conservation 24 Committee. 25 Both bills closely follow the Council 61 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 of State Government model, except that one bill, 3 A.2648, bases the manufacturer's share on the 4 percentage by weight of the amount of its products 5 being returned during the previous year, to the 6 total amount of products that are returned, while 7 the other bill bases A.2798, bases the 8 manufacturer's required share based upon 9 proportionate market sales share for that 10 manufacturer. 11 Both these bills require the 12 manufacturer to pay a registration fee of $5,000, 13 and both allow the manufacturer to participate by 14 opting either to set up its own independent program, 15 individually or jointly with other manufacturers, to 16 collect, transport and recycle their determined 17 share, whether it's market share or returned share, 18 depending on the bill, or as an alternative to pay 19 to a State administrated program the cost for the 20 actual collection, handling and recycling of that 21 manufacturer's determined share. 22 Both bills include banning 23 electronics from landfills. 24 While I'm hopeful that in the near 25 future we may be able to pass such legislation in 62 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 New York, and I'm actually going to be having 3 discussions with the Executive in New York within 4 the next few weeks on this question, I see no 5 problem whatsoever with New York City adopting a 6 producer responsibility type bill, such as the one 7 being proposed here. 8 As a matter of fact, I believe that 9 such action by the City Council may stimulate this 10 type to even act more quickly. 11 I applaud Council Member DeBlasio for 12 his initiative and the other Council members who are 13 supporting it. As an aside, on performance 14 standards, it has been my experience from looking at 15 legislation in various other states and also from 16 dealing with this topic, including the European 17 versions, that there is a need to have some kind of 18 a performance standard to ensure that we will 19 collect the computers that are needed to be 20 collected. 21 I have tended to feel that you can 22 allow manufacturers an option of setting up their 23 own program, but there has to be some incentive for 24 the manufacturers to get the materials back, because 25 otherwise what's going to happen is there will be 63 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 very few products actually recovered. 3 Now, there are some manufacturers who 4 are much more attuned to the importance and the 5 value of recycling of their products. In fact, there 6 are a number of manufacturers, including 7 manufacturers like Hewlett Packard and Dell and 8 Apple that sincerely believe they can make a profit 9 by recycling their products, and they see the market 10 value that recycling can produce for their business. 11 But there may be other manufacturers who are maybe 12 not as, you know, showing as much creativity or 13 initiative, and there is a danger that if you don't 14 set some kind of performance standard, that they may 15 not collect the amount of electronic products that 16 are going to be needed. 17 And then there is always the 18 possibility, if the consumer cannot put it out on 19 the street and the manufacturer does not make it 20 easier in order to bring these products back, that 21 you may have a situation with dumping. 22 So, I think there is a value of 23 having some kind of performance standards. I mean, 24 in the two pieces of State Legislature and the way 25 we deal with that is, we basically say the 64 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 manufacturer has to recycle their share that they 3 either put into the market by market value, or the 4 share, the return share of their product that comes 5 back each year. And they're either going to have to 6 set up their own program to get that share, or 7 they're going to have to pay the State to recycle 8 whatever they don't do. 9 So, that's how we handle performance 10 standards. But the City Council, I think what you 11 have here is a very good approach, and I think it's 12 one that would be workable. There is no reason to 13 say it's written in stone, you talk about, you know, 14 when the penalties take effect, you can talk about, 15 you know, maybe even setting a mechanism for 16 changing it if it turns out that it is not 17 realistic, but I really believe that manufacturers 18 are able, like, you know, has been testified with 19 Minnesota, that .25 is a very low standard, compared 20 to what manufacturers are capable of, if they're 21 given the incentive to do so. 22 Some, manufacturers, you know, will 23 have different ways of doing it, they may have it by 24 a mail-in program, they may give incentives, a 25 credit off the price of a computer if you bring back 65 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 a computer with it. There's all kinds of ways it can 3 be done. The manufacturer can determine what's the 4 best way, but we do have to have some kind of a 5 performance standard to make sure that we're really 6 going to get these things back. 7 In closing, I certainly would like to 8 indicate to you that you can count on my full 9 support in your efforts to pursue similar programs 10 to properly recycle electronic products. 11 Your records will help build momentum 12 to achieve the objective of establishing a 13 meaningful electronic program, and it will save the 14 taxpayers a tremendous amount of money, because I 15 can assure you that the cost of recycling these 16 products is going to be born by the taxpayers, 17 unless we set up a system, and I believe producer 18 responsibility is the best system to set up. Unless 19 we set up such a system and do it quickly, the cost 20 is going to be borne by the taxpayers and we're 21 going to soon be making decisions as to whether or 22 not we have to cut education, or cut health care, 23 cut public safety in order to be able to pay for the 24 disposal of some of these things, including 25 electronics waste. 66 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 By the way, I think the amount of 3 electronic waste, you know, may be more than what 4 has been estimated, what has certainly been 5 collected under the Solid Waste Plan. I think you're 6 going to see that it's the higher figure, and if we, 7 you know, do it properly, it's going to save the 8 taxpayers a lot of money. 9 Thank you very much, again, for 10 giving me the opportunity to testify before you here 11 today. 12 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, 13 Assemblymember. And thank you, always, for your 14 continued leadership on the environmental issues 15 facing the City and the State. I think you're right 16 on your point because I think that so many people 17 who have the space have a couple of computers in the 18 attic, have a couple computers in the garage, and 19 maybe in the storage center, so there is a lot more 20 that exists out there that wasn't collected, that 21 wasn't noted in the waste characterization study 22 that was referred to by the representatives of the 23 Administration. 24 Commissioner Reinhardt, I want to ask 25 you, in Minnesota what's the penalty scheme for not 67 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 complying with the performance standards? 3 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: Thank you, 4 Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. We do have a 5 registration fee in Minnesota, and it is $5,000 to 6 register in Minnesota, and I can't remember, it's 7 smaller, if you don't manufacturer as much it's a 8 lower registration fee. 9 If then you meet your recycling 10 standard, then you don't have a penalty. And there 11 are, it's graduated penalty basically, depending on 12 how far below you are, you pay 20, 30 of 50 cents 13 per pound under the goal that you have in place. 14 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Okay. 15 And Representative Widlitz, you 16 mentioned you have drop-off centers which you 17 consider an important component. Are they permanent 18 centers, or every six months there is a collection 19 drive? How does that work? 20 REPRESENTATIVE WIDLITZ: We're 21 requiring every municipality to have convenient, 22 free of charge disposal, a disposal location for 23 those products. 24 Today, as I mentioned, in Hartford 25 they're having a public hearing on the regulations. 68 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Part of the discussion that we have been going 3 through with the recyclers and the manufacturers who 4 want to set up their own program, is what does that 5 mean? Does it have to be a concrete location? Could 6 it be once a month? Could it be a regional 7 collection? So, we are still in the process of 8 identifying that, but the key, again, we will not 9 accept anything that is not really, really 10 convenient. What I would like to see is a physical 11 location in every municipality. 12 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Right. That's 13 one of the challenges that the density of the City 14 of New York poses to us. 15 Council Member DeBlasio, questions? 16 COUNCIL MEMBER DeBLASIO: Thank you, 17 Mr. Chair. 18 Well, just a couple of comments and 19 one question. First of all, to Assemblyman Colton, I 20 want to thank you again. It is not easy to try and 21 create reform and change in Albany and you've been 22 incredibly consistent and persistent about it. Also, 23 everyone who has followed the work of public 24 officials knows that there are two kind of folks. 25 There are folks who only are interested in something 69 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 if they, themselves, get all the credit, and then 3 there is people who actually want to create change 4 and want to work with others, and you've been 5 incredibly helpful in fostering our work here and 6 you've always seen it as collegial, and I appreciate 7 that, because I've known plenty of elected officials 8 who would have run the other way if the City were 9 actually starting to do something that wasn't their 10 jurisdiction, but you've been a real colleague, and 11 thank you for that. 12 And Representative Widlitz, I want to 13 thank you for your testimony. I want to give you 14 tremendous credit for the unanimity of support you 15 achieved. I understand that's not easy in any public 16 body, so you get extra credit. But I also want to 17 note that I appreciate the fact that you managed to 18 create a bipartisan consensus, including the fact 19 that if I remember both houses of your Legislature 20 are democrat; is that right? And your Governor is 21 obviously a republican, and you managed to get 22 everyone on the same page. So that even though we 23 are overwhelmingly a democrat body here and our 24 Mayor is not in our party, we still believe it's 25 possible on an issue like this to have bipartisan 70 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 consensus like you've achieved. And I want to thank 3 you for your good example. 4 And, Commissioner Reinhardt, you 5 traveled the farthest, you get extra credit, but you 6 know you said something at the press conference we 7 had and I just wanted to get it on the official 8 record. When we asked about the fact that, again, 9 you have a state with different partisan realities 10 and different levels of government from your 11 congressional delegation on down, you have a very 12 mixed political context, but you said, in fact, when 13 you first started moving this legislation in 14 Minnesota that it did not in fact have an easy road 15 and the Governor at the time was resistant, but you 16 also managed to overcome that. And I think it would 17 be helpful if you just put on record how that 18 evolution occurred. 19 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: Yes, thank 20 you. In fact, it was not an easy path to go down 21 because, and primarily because of the performance 22 standards that were included and the manufacturer 23 responsibility. 24 We talked over the years. There was a 25 large push for advance recycling fees and we just 71 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 kept pushing for the fact that we thought it was, it 3 should be, and of course, ended up being 4 manufacturer responsibility. 5 Governor Polenti and others, and 6 rightfully so, said are we sure about these 7 performance standards, and in fact, again, the same 8 arguments that I heard earlier is do we really want 9 to mandate this? And there was initially, anyhow, a 10 great deal of resistance. It took us, that's why it 11 took us several years. The first year we put it out 12 we were not successful, and then last year, because 13 of the timing of other things that were happening as 14 well, and change in leadership in our State House, 15 and the Committee Chairs changed, quite frankly, we 16 were able to get this on the floor and voted on. 17 We had huge bipartisan support in 18 both our State House and State Senate, and then when 19 it went to Governor Polenti, we had to give him the 20 data, to show that these were reasonable performance 21 standards, and there was a lot of pressure, there is 22 no doubt about the pressure that was placed on 23 members of our Legislature, on County Commissioners, 24 because a lot of that cost was coming to the county 25 level, and on our Governor. In the end, because of 72 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 that bipartisan support, because we compromised -- 3 we started out at one pound for one pound, and then 4 had to come back with the data and to really say 5 this is achievable was so very important. 6 In the end not only did our Governor 7 sign the bill, but he did list it as one of his top 8 accomplishments for the environment for the State of 9 Minnesota. 10 COUNCIL MEMBER DeBLASIO: Well, that's 11 a fantastic example, and we really appreciate that. 12 And I want to say that, first of all, we did look 13 very closely at your experience, and as you know, 14 our original wording had an 80 percent goal over ten 15 years, and I think the Chair outlined some of the 16 things we did to try and respond to concerns from 17 the Mayor's Office, from industry, but I want to 18 emphasize the fact that we have a 65 percent goal 19 over ten years, in other words ten years take place 20 -- or ten years pass before that goal was fully in 21 effect, with a three-year grace period at the 22 beginning for everyone to get organized around this 23 approach, we think it's realistic but it also is so 24 important to set the bar high in terms of moving 25 this whole society toward recycling. 73 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 So, I just wanted to say, we learned 3 a lot from your experience, and borrowed from it, 4 and I do think in the end that everyone involved 5 will look back and be very proud of this, and list 6 it among their accomplishments. 7 I also just want to say that, you 8 know, we in New York City, in New York State, feel I 9 think very proud of our tradition as a progressive 10 leader in the country, but this is an instance where 11 one of the other great progressive beacons has been 12 the State of Minnesota and we are proud to follow 13 your lead. So, thank you very much. 14 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you all 16 very much for traveling, some lesser distances, some 17 greater distances, and your leaderships for your own 18 jurisdictions but also across the country. We 19 greatly, greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much. 20 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Mr. Chairman, 21 could I ask a question? 22 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Sure. 23 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Thank you. 24 First I want to echo my colleagues in 25 thanking the two State representatives for coming a 74 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 long distance where it obviously is not directly 3 relevant to your political interests but your 4 substantive interest generated this, and I 5 appreciate it. 6 I think you heard my concern about 7 incentives to the consumer, and I'm wondering how 8 each of Connecticut and Minnesota handles the 9 incentive to consumer issue? 10 STATE REPRESENTATIVE WIDLITZ: Well, 11 we have found in Connecticut that people have been 12 stockpiling a lot of this equipment, they don't know 13 what to do with it. If they have to pay to find a 14 carton and take it some place and perhaps go on line 15 to get the sticker that pays for the mailing, it's 16 too much trouble because they can go to the local 17 transfer station and toss it in the trash. Right now 18 it doesn't cost them anything. 19 So, the incentive really is, it's a 20 self incentive to be able to get rid of what's 21 getting stockpiled in your home to take it somewhere 22 right in your locale, your municipality, not have to 23 pay for it, and it's taken care of for you and you 24 don't have to make any special arrangements. 25 We don't have in our bill specific 75 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 goals yet. The bill actually will take effect on 3 January 1st of '09. Following that, after I think in 4 October of 2010, our Commissioner will have the data 5 from that first year, and then the Commissioner will 6 make a recommendation as to what types of goals we 7 would like to achieve and also with a plan to 8 achieve those goals. 9 So, while our goals aren't stated up 10 front, they are there and every three years after 11 that there will be an updating of that plan, and 12 perhaps ratcheting up those goals. But we kind of -- 13 I don't think we in Connecticut could have gotten 14 that first step passed without having a year to get 15 the data first and know exactly what is coming in 16 and go forward. But I think the incentives are 17 really self-motivated to just get rid of that stuff 18 that is piling up and you don't know what to do with 19 it and you don't pay a lot of money to get rid of 20 it. And this accomplishes that and also does 21 something good for the environment as well. 22 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Does the bill 23 prohibit the manufacturer from for instance putting 24 a deposit on the equipment that you get back when 25 you returned it? 76 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 STATE REPRESENTATIVE WIDLITZ: 3 Actually we had a very vigorous discussion on two 4 bills, one was the Producer of Responsibility and 5 the other was the ARF Bill, the Advance Recycling 6 Fee. And actually the two chairs, the Senate Chair 7 and the House Chair of our Environment Committee 8 were on different sides of that issue, so we just 9 put the bill off for that year, so we new that CSG 10 was working on a model. We want to be in sync with 11 the region, so, you know, basically we felt that if 12 you allow the manufacturer to put basically a tax at 13 the point of purchase, you know, it frees them of 14 the responsibility of building a better product. If 15 you just have to return it at the end of the 16 process, you haven't accomplished anything because 17 you haven't made them build a better product, 18 eliminate the toxics because it's cheaper for them 19 to recycle it if they built a better product, 20 because they're going to be charged for the 21 recycling cost. 22 And plus, the bureaucracy that you 23 have to establish collecting the fee, returning the 24 fee, keeping track of all of that, we just didn't 25 think that was the way to go. We think that having 77 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 this type of program puts the responsibility on the 3 manufacturer and gives them an incentive, build a 4 better product and make it easier to recycle because 5 then it will cost you less in the long run. Which 6 ever way you do it, the consumer is going to pay a 7 little more, we all know that, whether you're going 8 to pay an advance recycling fee, or you're going to 9 pay for a better product, what we want to do is 10 achieve a better process here. 11 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: I won't 12 debate it. I don't fully understand what you're 13 saying, but maybe I could ask the representative of 14 Minnesota what your bill provides with respect to 15 incentives to consumer. 16 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: Well, one of 17 the issues, of course, from Minnesota, again, is the 18 fact that we had a ban on electronic waste going 19 into the waste stream and that was already in 20 effect. So, we needed to have the infrastructure to 21 deal with the waste as people were trying to get rid 22 of it. 23 Prior to the legislation, to get rid 24 of a computer, and I know from my own experience 25 because I wanted to make sure that my old computer 78 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 was recycled, it ended up costing me $50 to recycle 3 two computers, actually, and I thought I was getting 4 a heck of a deal. And, so, the incentive really for 5 the residential users of the computers and 6 televisions is that with this legislation that 7 burden no longer falls on them as much as it does on 8 the manufacturer. 9 The advance recycling fee was 10 rejected. It was discussed at length by our 11 Legislature and it was rejected, saying that just 12 because you have a fee that's paid doesn't mean that 13 it's actually going to be better for the environment 14 or better for public health, not only from a design 15 for the environment from the manufacturers, but 16 paying a fee doesn't mean it actually gets recycled. 17 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: No, but the 18 fee would come back to the consumer when it was 19 recycled. That's the idea that I'm questioning 20 about. 21 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: Well, again, 22 the advanced recycling fee I think then does get to 23 the issue of not having an incentive for the 24 manufacturer to design for the environment as well. 25 But generally speaking, we -- 79 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: I don't 3 understand that, quite understand that. Could you 4 explain that to me? 5 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: Sure. 6 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: What does a 7 fee have to do with designing for the environment? 8 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: From the 9 manufacturer's perspective. 10 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: My 12 understanding, because I'm not a manufacturer, my 13 understanding is that when you have -- when you 14 design something, you have to make choices obviously 15 with the materials that you're using. If it's going 16 to cost you more, net cost you more because you're 17 choosing a more toxic material, you are likely to 18 design it so that it will, the net cost will be less 19 to you, because it's about the bottom line. 20 So, if you're designing for the 21 environment, and you're responsible for the end of 22 life for that product, the net cost to you, you can 23 have more control over that. 24 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: What I just 25 don't understand is, what I'm concern is about the 80 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 incentive to the consumer to bring the product back, 3 let's say the TV. If I realize that one incentive is 4 don't put it in the garbage, then you don't have a 5 place to put it, let me ask you one question in that 6 regard; did you find a lot of dumping in this 7 interim time? 8 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: Absolutely. 9 And in fact, given the geography of Minnesota, what 10 was happening was there was millions and millions of 11 dollars literally being spent primarily by greater 12 Minnesota counties because it wasn't as easy to dump 13 them in the Metropolitan area as it was to go out 14 into the ditches. We literally have -- we have 87 15 counties in Minnesota, and we got, when we asked for 16 what's happening in your county, we got a response 17 from 100 percent of those, which is really unusual, 18 saying this is a huge problem from an environmental 19 perspective, because the illegal dumping, we have 20 pictures that I could send to you, but it was 21 absolutely incredible, the number of tons that were 22 being dumped because they didn't want to pay the $50 23 like I did. 24 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Well, that's 25 exactly my concern. What I'm saying is if, in fact, 81 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 you got back $50 from the manufacturer when you 3 brought the computer in or the TV in, then you 4 wouldn't take it out in the country and dump it. 5 You'd bring it to the recycling center. 6 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: I believe 7 that most people want to do the right thing for the 8 environment. If it cost them money to do it, it 9 makes it more difficult. 10 If it is in fact convenient, and it's 11 free, we are finding that people are bringing their 12 televisions and their computers and that that is the 13 incentive. It's not a detriment for them to do the 14 right thing for the environment, and that appears to 15 be the incentive that they need. 16 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: So you think 17 that people will bring them back even if they don't 18 get any deposit just to avoid violating the law, 19 say, or avoid doing something environmentally 20 damaging? 21 COMMISSIONER REINHARDT: I believe 22 that that is correct. And in fact, very recently, 23 well, November 15th, America Recycles Day, the Mall 24 of America had a take-back event, free take-back 25 event. November 15th was a Thursday. By noon on 82 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Friday, they had already gotten three times as many 3 electronics as they had expected, and they had to 4 say, all right, we can't accept them here anymore, 5 there are other options for them. There is pent-up 6 demand, we know that, and people want to, I believe, 7 generally do the right thing, but they don't want to 8 have to pay a lot of money to do so. 9 COUNCIL MEMBER KOPPELL: Well, I 10 appreciate the answer. 11 Mr. Chairman, I commend you, this 12 problem of dumping I am very concerned. A lot of 13 people want to do the right thing, but a lot of 14 people, unfortunately, won't. 15 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Well, we 16 understand that point, but, you know, if I have a 17 gallon of paint thinner in my house, I have to deal 18 with it, it's toxic, I can't dump it, and the same 19 way with this material, and you will not be allowed 20 to leave it on the curbside anymore. That will be a 21 violation of the recycling law, and therefore there 22 will be a penalty, Sanitation won't pick it up. 23 So, we think that, you know, 24 considering all angles before, any experience of our 25 colleagues in other jurisdictions that the advance 83 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 recycling fee is not the way to go, that the 3 mandates with the performance standards and the 4 incentives is the way to go but we certainly thank 5 you for that perspective. 6 We would like to thank you all very, 7 very much for your input, and as I said, your 8 leadership, and we look forward to working with you 9 all. 10 Thank you. 11 Our next panel is Scott Hughes, who 12 represents Apple Computer Company; Steven Corson 13 from the Manhattan Borough President Scott 14 Stringer's Office; Ted Smith from the Electronics 15 Take Back Coalition; and Kate Sinding, Counsel from 16 the Natural Resources Defense Council. 17 And Council Member DeBlasio would 18 like to say something. 19 COUNCIL MEMBER DeBLASIO: Thank you 20 very much, Mr. Chair. 21 Mr. Chairman, as you may know, I 22 don't have the honor of being a member of the 23 Sanitation Committee, so unfortunately there are 24 some other things on my schedule that I have to 25 attend to. But since you and I, and Carmen Cognetta 84 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 and Jean Weinberg have been working as a seamless 3 unit throughout this process, and all the rest of 4 you will remain, I would ask your apology and I will 5 certainly check in with all of you after the hearing 6 on everything that came of it, but I just want to 7 thank everyone on this upcoming panel who has done 8 so much to help move this forward, particularly 9 thank our friend from Apple for their support, and I 10 want to just say, Mr. Chairman in one point, no one 11 should stereotype this discussion, government versus 12 industry. In fact, industry showed us a lot of the 13 model that led to this legislation, and some of the 14 strongest voices supporting this bill have come from 15 the electronics industry and we really want to thank 16 them and they've been invaluable in terms of the 17 construction of the legislation and also building 18 support for it. So, thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Again, thank you 20 for your leadership on this issue, Council Member 21 DeBlasio. 22 Okay, we are settled and why don't we 23 start from your right and my left. And, again, thank 24 you all very much for coming. 25 MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Chairman 85 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 McMahon and members of the Committee. I really 3 appreciate being invited to come back and testify 4 here. As you know, I've been here a couple of times 5 before on this bill because I think it's so 6 important in terms of the national debate. I'm 7 representing the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, 8 formerly called the Computer TakeBack Campaign. We 9 recently expanded our scope. 10 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Mr. Smith, just 11 say your name for the record. 12 MR. SMITH: Ted Smith. Sorry. We have 13 expanded our scope to make sure that we include 14 televisions as well as computers, because as you've 15 heard the discussion about the switch-over digital 16 television that we think is so important, I'm here 17 to support Intro. 104 because I believe that this 18 will not only serve the people and the environment 19 in New York City, but it will also send an important 20 message to other states and cities that are 21 currently considering similar legislation. And in 22 the absence of strong environmental leadership of 23 Washington, D.C., it's essential to enact strong 24 environmental legislation to help address what we 25 call the E-waste sunami, which is already engulfing 86 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 our country, which is sure to increase dramatically 3 with the switchover to digital television. 4 I'd just like to give you a couple of 5 data points on the switch over. According to the 6 Consumer Electronics Association, the sales of 7 digital televisions are already up 11 percent in 8 2007, are projected to rise further to 17 percent in 9 2008. This is enormous growth rate. We estimate that 10 consumers are expected to buy 32 million new digital 11 TVs in 2008, and this is, we believe, going to lead 12 to a great increase in spike of what we see coming 13 into the waste stream. 14 For anyone who has watched any of 15 the, as was mentioned before, the football games or 16 any other television, right now you're seeing we're 17 being inundated by commercials urging people to rush 18 out and buy the latest digital TV and so this is 19 what is driving a lot of this consumer demand. 20 I want to just mention that we're not 21 seeing similar commercials talking about how 22 consumers can buy the set top boxes, if they prefer 23 an inexpensive alternative, which is something that 24 the Consumer Electronics Association is promoting. I 25 wish if they were serious about promoting that as a 87 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 low-cost alternative, we'd see the same kinds of 3 advertising that we're seeing with the digital TVs. 4 I want to just mention two real major 5 points in terms of the support for this, and one of 6 them is the switchover to digital TV, which we do 7 believe is enormously important. 8 But I want to also talk about the 9 discussion of goals and standards, and let me just 10 go back to the philosophy that I've learned from the 11 industry leaders of Silicon Valley over the last 25 12 years, which is really, in my opinion, a bipartisan 13 approach in environmental performance. What the 14 Silicon Valley leaders have said is, you, 15 government, it's your role to set the goals that you 16 want us to meet, but then let us figure out how to 17 meet those goals. That's I think a combination of 18 what the traditional democrat and republican 19 approach to this is. I think that this bill is a 20 very good example of how that plays out. By setting 21 these goals and by setting the standards, what 22 you're doing is sending signals to the companies, 23 but you're not mandating how they have to meet their 24 goals. They're simply saying meet those goals. 25 My belief is that a producer 88 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 responsibility approach without standards just leads 3 to kind of feel good environmental policy and empty 4 promises. 5 We need to have proper incentives in 6 these bills if we're going to actually achieve the 7 goals that we want, and, of course, I think everyone 8 would agree that goals without some kind of driver 9 can lead to empty promises. 10 I think it's also important to 11 understand that by setting these performance 12 standards, what you're doing is creating the 13 incentives for the manufacturers to create their own 14 best take-back systems. Because they have to meet 15 these goals, they're going to unleash their own 16 creativity on how to meet those goals. Again, it's 17 not a government mandate on how to do it, it's left 18 up to the companies. 19 We're already seeing some very good 20 developments with some of the manufacturers creating 21 a coupon system, where they say we will give you a 22 -- your point here about we'll give you an 23 incentive to return your product, we'll give you $10 24 off or $50 off. Our latest product, if you'll do 25 that. 89 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 So, I think what we're getting to, 3 what you talk about in terms of the Bottle Bill, the 4 deposit return system, but without actually calling 5 it that. It's actually putting that proposal into 6 the hands of the manufacturers, and we think that's 7 actually an appropriate way of doing it. That's a 8 distinguished, between the advanced recycling fee, 9 which is the method that we have in California and 10 which we don't feel as effective. I think that the 11 method that you've chosen here is actually the best 12 of both worlds because it does set out those 13 standards and then leaves it up to the company about 14 how to meet that. 15 It's what we call cost 16 internalization, and once you can stop the companies 17 from externalizing those environmental costs on the 18 society and accept them themselves, that will 19 provide them with the incentives for actually doing 20 the right thing. 21 I want to just also say that the 22 passage of the law in Minnesota has led to an 23 important new initiative just announced by three of 24 the major companies, television companies, that 25 their response to that law is to create what we call 90 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 a "third party organization," where they are 3 stepping forward knowing that they're going to have 4 to accept responsibility and my believe is that's in 5 direct response to passage of the law there. 6 And I also want to mention that Sony 7 has a new initiative that we think is very 8 important, where they have announced a one-for-one 9 policy. Their goal now officially is that they want 10 to, first of all, they will take back any product, 11 any Sony branded product, and they also will say 12 that the goal is to take back one product for every 13 product that they sell. And I want to just quote 14 briefly from a statement by Stan Glasco, who is 15 their president and chief operating officer, who 16 said that Sony US is providing the highest level of 17 service and support, doesn't stop once a purchase is 18 made. We believe it is Sony's responsibility to 19 provide customers with end-of-life solutions for all 20 the products we manufacture. 21 So, I think that, again, you're 22 seeing these kinds of developments coming because 23 states and now New York City is moving in the 24 direction of producer responsibility. 25 So, I think that there is certainly 91 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 going to be continuing discussion about the proper 3 level of goals. Let me just point out that these 4 goals, while I think that they are an important step 5 in the right direction, it's nowhere near enough to 6 solve the entire problem. A one-for-one is the 7 minimum necessary, if we're going to really solve 8 the problem, but that doesn't really take into 9 account the fact that there are already hundreds of 10 millions of units collecting in people's homes in 11 basements and garages and closets. If we really 12 wanted to have goals to solve the entire problem, it 13 would have to be 1. Something to 1 in terms of sales 14 versus returns. So, again, this is a modest step, 15 but we're willing to support it because we think it 16 is a good step in the process. It's the right way to 17 go. Thank you. 18 MS. SINDING: Good afternoon, Chairman 19 McMahon and members of the Committee. My name is 20 Kate Sinding, and I'm a senior attorney with the 21 Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC is a 22 national non-profit organization that's worked for 23 more than 30 years on solid waste and environmental 24 and public health issues in the New York region. 25 We've also been directly involved in 92 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 numerous national solid waste issues, including the 3 ongoing movement to enact electronics recycling 4 legislation across the country. 5 Our organization has over 1.2 million 6 members and activists with over 30,000 supporters in 7 New York City alone. 8 I am pleased to be here today to 9 provide NRDC's strong support for Intro. 104-A. We 10 submitted lengthy testimony in October 2006 in 11 support of what was then Intro. 104, and I'm only 12 going to touch briefly on the points made in that 13 testimony and instead focus the significant portion 14 of my testimony today on a couple of key issues that 15 are related to the current version of the bill. 16 As has been noted by a number of 17 witnesses, as well as members of the Committee, 18 e-waste represents the fastest-growing component of 19 the solid waste stream nationwide. Indeed, the US 20 Environmental Protection Agency states: "European 21 Union estimates indicate that electronic and 22 electrical equipment waste is growing three times 23 faster than municipal solid waste" in general. And 24 because computers, TVs and other electronics do 25 contain toxic substances, including mercury, lead, 93 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 cadmium and arsenic, they compose serious health and 3 environmental threats if they are incinerated or if 4 they're improperly handled or disposed of. 5 Notably, although e-waste currently 6 represents less than two percent of the municipal 7 solid waste stream, EPA estimates that it's 8 responsible for as much as 40 percent of lead that's 9 found in landfills. And it's for this reason that 10 ten states, including six in just the past year, 11 have now enacted comprehensive electronics recycling 12 legislation. 13 Not only is this a fast-growing 14 national trend, as we've seen evidence of today, 15 it's a regional one, with Connecticut having enacted 16 an e-waste law last summer, and New Jersey having 17 done so just last week, and the Governor is expected 18 to sign that law quickly into law, that bill quickly 19 into law. 20 As others have testified, electronic 21 manufacturers are themselves assuming increasing 22 responsibility taking back products at the end of 23 their useful lives. 24 Companies like Dell and HP have been 25 running voluntary take-back systems for a number of 94 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 years successfully, and they're more recently joined 3 by a growing number of others including Apple and 4 Sony, and as Ted just mentioned, a very important 5 recent development is the announcement of a company 6 by Toshiba, Panasonic and Sharp, that will provide 7 recycling services to manufacturers of electronic 8 products. 9 As you know, Intro. 104-A requires 10 the manufacturer of computers and computer 11 peripheral, TVs and portable digital music players 12 that sell goods in New York City to set up free 13 take-back systems to collect and then safely recycle 14 or reuse those items. 15 Such a system could utilize 16 mail-back, drop-off locations, curbside pick-up, 17 collection events or other means, significantly, 18 though, the bill does not dictate what collection 19 programs manufacturers must use, rather leaving to 20 manufacturers the flexibility to design an efficient 21 system that's tailored to its particular needs and 22 characteristics. 23 Because of that flexibility, the bill 24 includes mandatory performance standards, and those 25 phase in slowly and increase over time. 95 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Those collection standards are 3 critical to ensuring that manufacturers design 4 effective take-back programs to recover the largest 5 possible quantities of end of life electronics. 6 Without enforceable collection 7 standards, the Department of Sanitation has little 8 ability to hold manufacturers accountable for 9 unsatisfactory recycling and reuse programs. And I'd 10 like to make just a couple of points in response to 11 some of the earlier testimony and particularly that 12 of Deputy Commissioner Orlin. 13 The fact that the bill requires 14 manufacturers to take back every piece of 15 electronics that's offered for recycling, with all 16 due respect to the Department, this misses the 17 point. That does nothing to encourage manufacturers 18 to set up programs that will actually incentivize 19 consumers to return significant quantities of the 20 product. So, the collection standards are separate 21 and an equally important element of the bill. 22 Secondly, I just wanted to respond to 23 the contention that the penalty structure penalizes 24 smaller manufacturers. It's a percentage-based 25 system. So, if you're a smaller manufacturer, you 96 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 need to take back a smaller number of items. And, 3 so, the overall quantity of products that a 4 manufacturer sells in the City should result in no 5 greater likelihood that that manufacturer is unable 6 to achieve the performance standards. 7 And then I also wanted to just make a 8 quick point on the question of incentives and the 9 question that you've been raising, Council Member 10 Koppell. 11 We believe, and there has been 12 testimony to this effect, that there are three 13 elements of the bill that inherently provide 14 incentives to consumers to get these products back 15 to the manufacturer's hands. They include the 16 disposal band, so consumers cannot throw these 17 things away. 18 Two, they require that the 19 manufacturer set up programs that are free to 20 consumers; and three, this is not so much an element 21 of the bill, but it's been referred to, collection 22 events which have been being held in the City on a 23 voluntary basis, as well as in other parts of the 24 country, have been tremendously successful, and I 25 think you'll hear more about that from others this 97 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 afternoon. 3 So, it's our view that the beauty of 4 this bill doesn't tell manufacturers what they 5 should do to get the products back. It leaves that 6 up to them, but we believe there is a tremendous 7 pent-up demand among consumers to return these items 8 and that will happen with the enactment of the law. 9 One other particular unique feature 10 of Intro. 104-A that bears recognition in this 11 regard is the reuse provision. Unlike any other law 12 that's sought, this bill gives manufacturers double 13 credit in meeting minimum collection standards for 14 any working unit that's either donated to City 15 schools or to a non-profit organization, benefitting 16 low-income children or families in New York City. 17 This gives manufacturers another 18 option to meet the minimum standard, while at the 19 same time benefitting New York City kids. 20 I will just close by saying that as 21 evidenced by the broad array of witnesses testifying 22 in favor of Intro. 104-A today, this measure enjoys 23 tremendous support and it's a measure that's time 24 has come here in New York City, as around the 25 country, and we applaud the Committee and the 98 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Council for advancing one of the most progressive 3 versions of these bills, and being the first City in 4 the country to do so. 5 By enacting 104-A, the Council will 6 not only go far toward addressing a real and growing 7 environmental and economic concern for New York 8 City, but it will also join the increasing national 9 and regional trend toward comprehensive management 10 of electronic goods at the end of their useful 11 lives. 12 I thank you for the opportunity to 13 testify today, and look forward to continuing to 14 work with the Council and Administration on this 15 important legislation. 16 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Ms. 17 Sinding. 18 You're next, sir. 19 MR. HUGHES: Chairman McMahon, Council 20 Members Jackson, Koppell, I want to thank you for 21 the opportunity today to deliver testimony on Intro. 22 104. My name is Scott Hughes. I'm with Apple 23 Computer and we're a strategic initiatives group. On 24 behalf of Apple, we want to applaud you for your 25 efforts to draft legislation regarding the issue of 99 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 electronic waste. 3 Apple has long been an advocate of 4 product stewardship, and we believe that the concept 5 extends to the proper disposal of electronic 6 equipment at the end of its useful life. 7 We believe that all parties that have 8 a role in manufacturing, selling or using Apple 9 products, also have a role in in end-of-life 10 management. 11 Manufacturers should design products 12 with minimal environmental impact, and provide means 13 to facilitate environmentally friendly recycling. 14 Consumers should select a disposal method that does 15 not adversely affect the environment. 16 Government should develop public 17 policy to promote appropriate end-of-life 18 management, including environmentally friendly 19 disposal and recycling, and recycled materials 20 should be used in new products whenever possible. 21 Apple supports the responsible 22 management of used electronic products in a manner 23 that protects the environment and uses resources 24 efficiently. 25 We take a holistic view of recycling 100 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 and waste minimization. At Apple, we believe that 3 end-of-life management of electronic products begins 4 with design. We applied this philosophy from the 5 outset, beginning the design stage by creating 6 compact, ultra efficient products that use high 7 recycling value materials wherever possible. 8 On the legislation, we believe the 9 best way to approach electronics recycling is at the 10 federal level. Apple supports the European style 11 approach to electronic recycling that is 12 comprehensive and covers products based on contents, 13 not on use. In the absence of federal legislation, 14 however, and you are to be commended for your 15 proactive leadership on this issue, we believe that 16 any legislation that is passed in New York City 17 should accomplish four key objectives: 18 Number one, be comprehensive in the 19 scope of products that it covers. 20 Apple currently covers take-back 21 programs for all of its manufactured products, and 22 we mean all, there are no exceptions. And we believe 23 that any manufacturer responsibility legislation 24 should target all products that contain similar 25 internal and external components and chemicals. This 101 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 includes computer peripherals, such as printers, 3 scanners and fax machines. 4 Number two, we believe the 5 legislation should impact all stakeholders involved 6 which promotes equity. Comprehensive e-waste 7 legislation must cover consumers but it must also 8 cover small and large businesses, B to B, schools 9 and municipalities as well. 10 Number three, we'd like to see 11 legislation incentivize good product design, not 12 discourage it. With respect to orphan waste, we 13 believe that those companies, such as Apple, that 14 manufacture equipment, which is done with the 15 highest value components, again, this should be 16 rewarded. 17 Number four, we believe that you 18 should cover well-established manufacturers like 19 Apple, but you should also cover new entrance to the 20 market. Marketshare, as opposed to return share, in 21 our estimation is the fairest way to apportion cost 22 equally to all manufacturers. 23 We want to convey today our strong 24 support for 104-A, as it establishes an electronics 25 recycling program that covers a broad scope of 102 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 products, including computer peripherals and covers 3 waste generated by all entities, businesses and 4 schools. 5 The product scope covers products 6 with similar internal and external components and, 7 in addition, similar concerns regarding landfill 8 disposal and resource conservation. 9 Intro. 104 recognizes that product 10 scope should not be determined by the use of the 11 product, but rather by the contents of materials 12 that should be recycled and not discarded. 13 Apple suggests that the performance 14 standards in the bill be removed or modified. 15 Performance measures should not be based on 16 arbitrary percentages, but rather in substantiated 17 recycling data. It would be far more efficient if 18 the City established recycling goals, coupled with 19 manufacturer transparency on the amount of 20 electronic waste being collected and recycled. 21 It would be also beneficial for the 22 City to encourage and reward smart environmental 23 design by reducing the performance standards for 24 companies that design and produce products with the 25 environment in mind. 103 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 A more well-designed product will 3 have less of an impact on the environment. This 4 should be encouraged. One of the ways to accomplish 5 this, we might recommend, would be to use the 6 electronic product environmental assessment tool, 7 also known as EP, which is funded by the USEPA. 8 This tool ranks electronics based on 9 their environmental impact and design choices. 10 Encouraging environmental design would reduce the 11 overall impact of electronic products in the City of 12 New York. 13 In closing, I just wanted to hit you 14 with a couple of data points regarding Apple, but we 15 do believe that we have been very proactive with 16 respect to environmental conservation. 17 One good example of this is that 18 we're the first in the computer industry to complete 19 eliminate cathobe ray tube displays. Our first 20 generation, IMAC, for example, contains 484 grams of 21 lead. Our most current model, which is lcd based, 22 the IMAC has gone from 484 grams of lead to less 23 than one gram. 24 Also, in 2008, Apple plans to 25 completely eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in all 104 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 of our products, and eliminate mercury in our 3 displays. We are transitioning from florescent lamps 4 to leds to illuminate our displays. 5 And, finally, when it comes to 6 recycling, we offer free take-back for anything that 7 Apple makes, whether it's the i-phone, the ipod, 8 we'll take it back. 9 We feel that by not creating a 10 special or exempted class of products, everything we 11 make that is branded apple we take back, period, no 12 questions asked. 13 And then, finally, I did want to 14 point out that when it comes to e-waste that is 15 collected in North America, everything that is 16 collected here in North America is processed here. 17 Apple as a company has a strict policy, we ship 18 nothing overseas for disposal. 19 I want to thank you for the 20 opportunity to deliver testimony today. We strongly 21 support Intro. 104-A. We look forward to working 22 with you to develop meaningful, comprehensive 23 e-waste legislation. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. CORSON: Thank you and good 105 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 afternoon. My name is Steven Corson. I have a brief 3 statement to read on behalf of Borough President 4 Stringer. 5 I want to thank Chairman McMahon, as 6 well as the 47 members of the City Council who have 7 co-sponsored Intro. 104. 8 As our City moves toward becoming the 9 nation's model for urban environmental 10 sustainability, Intro. 104 is essential to the 11 reduction of toxic materials in our waste stream, 12 increased recycling rates and create a cradle to 13 grave accountability. 14 The bulk of our e-waste is managed 15 through traditional methods of landfill disposal and 16 incineration. Almost 25,000 tons of electronics are 17 picked up by New York City's Department of 18 Sanitation each year, and according to the USEPA, 70 19 percent of heavy metals in our nation's landfills 20 come from electronics. 21 These statistics translate into a 22 serious public health threat. Consumer electronics 23 contain toxic materials, including lead, mercury, 24 cadmium, barium oxide, polyvinyl chloride, all of 25 which are linked to cancer, nervous system 106 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 disorders, endocrine disruption and other health 3 risks. 4 These materials are harmless when 5 they are encased in plastic, but when dumped or 6 burned, these benign materials can contaminate our 7 water and air. 8 Companies in Europe, Japan and South 9 Korea have begun to take responsibility for 10 recycling of electronic products, and other states 11 in the US have passed laws requiring producer 12 responsibility. 13 Intro. 104 requires electronics 14 manufacturers selling their goods in New York City 15 to assume the real costs of their products. 16 Financial costs associated with 17 recycling toxins will encourage manufacturers to 18 replace harmful waste products and materials that 19 are easier to recycle. 20 I applaud the sponsors of this 21 legislation for proposing an e-waste recycling model 22 that will protect New Yorkers, and prompt 23 corporations to value the public cost of poor 24 environmental practice. 25 Given the amount of waste exported by 107 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 New York City to out-of-state landfills, the reuse 3 and recycling of electronics will save the City 4 millions in taxpaying dollars. 5 E-waste is growing at an estimated 6 three times the rate of the rest of our municipal 7 waste stream. As the rate of technological 8 advancement increases, so, too, does the incidence 9 of product obsolescence and market pressures for 10 consumer disposal. Given that, the problem of 11 e-waste will only become more pressing for the City 12 of New York, and it is essential that we move 13 quickly to enact a local management framework. 14 There is one point of caution 15 regarding the development of manufacturer-based 16 recycling systems. Given the high cost of 17 electronics disassembly and the processing of 18 hazardous components, many e-waste recyclers 19 increase profit by sending equipment overseas. 20 Equipment sent abroad for recycling or reuse is 21 often mismanaged, and causes labor safety concerns, 22 local health risks and environmental contamination. 23 Because this bill requires 24 manufacturers to report annually on the processors 25 they contract with, as well as specific processes 108 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 used to recycle their products, it should reduce the 3 risk that manufacturers will contract throughout 4 with corrupt e-recyclers. 5 In conclusion, I strongly support 6 Intro 104 as an effective way to manage our City's 7 e-waste, protect public health and the environment 8 and ensure that electronics manufacturers account 9 for the external costs of their products. I look 10 forward to working with the City Council, consumer 11 and advocacy groups and the Department of Sanitation 12 to realize this important law. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Mr. 15 Corson. And just thank the Borough President, 16 Borough President Stringer, for the testimony. We 17 appreciate it. 18 Mr. Hughes, Apple is one of the 19 largest manufacturers of electronic equipment from 20 computers to phones to all the items that this bill 21 covers; is that correct? 22 MR. HUGHES: Correct. 23 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: And I just want 24 to make sure that I understand that you testify in 25 support of 104-A. 109 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 MR. HUGHES: Correct. 3 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: You're not crazy 4 about the performance standards, but you see a way 5 that they can be worked and certainly a company 6 that's environmentally conscious like Apple would 7 like to have credits for things that it already 8 does, but you're not objecting to the bill because 9 of those performance standards; is that correct? 10 MR. HUGHES: Yes, it's a fair 11 characterization. We strongly support the bill. We 12 do have some concerns with respect to the 13 performance measures. But I think that given the 14 time frame involved, we can probably work through 15 that. 16 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Because we 17 pushed out the actual enforcement date three years 18 and start running from there, is that correct? 19 MR. HUGHES: Yes, it was very helpful. 20 I mean, you know, as I noted in the testimony, we 21 would prefer to have quantifiable, you know, data to 22 point to, which we think would be a more realistic 23 guide to do this properly. But we recognize where 24 you're trying to go with it, certainly well 25 intentioned, and we think, again, given the time 110 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 frame involved, approximately three years, I 3 believe, would give us sufficient time to sort of 4 move toward those goals. 5 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Well, that's 6 certainly an enlightened approach, and hopefully we 7 can spread that around. 8 MR. HUGHES: Well, we've got Al Gore 9 on our boards, so it's in keeping with -- 10 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: There you go. 11 From your program now where you do 12 take back all items, can you give us a bit of 13 insight as to the percentage of what you capture? 14 How does it work now? 15 MR. HUGHES: You know, I don't have 16 those statistics with me, I have to get that from 17 corporate, but I do know that we've seen a real 18 spike as of late, in terms of those folks who want 19 to recycle e-waste. Apple tries to be as proactive 20 as we can, for example. If someone goes into an 21 Apple store and wants to buy a new, you know, 22 laptop, we will take back any computer, it doesn't 23 have to be a MAC, it could be a Dell, HP, Gateway. 24 So, again, we try to be helpful in that regard and 25 we're sure that we're clearing products out of the 111 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 waste stream. 3 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Okay, but if you 4 could check with Corporate and give us perhaps some 5 guidance as to what amount of the products now come 6 back already under the programs that you have set 7 up, that would be helpful. 8 MR. HUGHES: Be happy to. 9 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you. I 10 want to thank you all very much for your input, your 11 hard work on this issue, and we look forwarding to 12 working with you and bringing this to a quick 13 conclusion. Thank you. 14 MR. HUGHES: Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you all 16 very much. 17 Our next panel is Francis Valluzzo, 18 from Dell, Incorporated; Zachary Bernstein, from 19 Hewlett Packard Company; Timothy McGrady from LG 20 Electronics, USA; and Lawrence Mandelker, from the 21 New York Metropolitan Retailers Association. 22 Okay, this time we're going to switch 23 it up and start from my right, your left, so we have 24 the computer industry and then the retailers after. 25 So, if you would start, sir. Please 112 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 speak into the microphone so it's part of the 3 record, and identify yourselves for the record. 4 MR. McGRADY: My name is Tim McGrady. 5 I'm the Environmental Manager with LG Electronics, 6 USA. Good afternoon, Chairman McMahon and members of 7 the Committee. I welcome the opportunity to testify 8 concerning proposed Local Law, Introduction No. 9 104-A on the collection recycling reuse and safe 10 handling of electronic equipment in the great City 11 of New York. 12 Based in Englewood Cliffs, New 13 Jersey, LG Electronics USA is a North American 14 subsidiary of LG Electronics which is a global force 15 in consumer electronics, home appliances and mobile 16 communications. 17 In the US, LG sells a wide range of 18 digital displays, digital media products, digital 19 appliances and mobile phones. 20 LG Electronics is the owner of LG, 21 Zenith and Gold Star brands sold in the United 22 States. LG Electronics is committed to the 23 responsible stewardship of its products. We agree 24 that end-of-life products should not be sent to 25 landfills or incinerators, nor should they be sent 113 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 to developing nations, or prisons, where improper, 3 unhealthy or environmentally damaging recycling 4 takes place. 5 LG is willing to take responsibility 6 for the proper management of its end-of-life 7 products. In its home country of South Korea, LG 8 manages state-of-the-art recycling operations for 9 appliances and partners with recyclers for the 10 recycling of end-of-life consumer electronics. 11 LG is currently in the midst of 12 developing and implementing its policy for the 13 takeback and recycling of its products in the United 14 States. 15 We began by offering free take-back 16 of cellular telephones. All an owner of any cellular 17 brand has to do is visit the LG website, print the 18 postage free mailing label and send the phone via 19 mail. LG pays for the postage and pays for the 20 recycling. 21 But in our research of competitor 22 cell phone take-back programs we found that one of 23 the most proactive, longest standing take-back 24 program operated by Motorola, only achieved a 3.32 25 percent rate of return in 2006 when compared to 114 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 annual sales. 3 It has been estimated that there are 4 some 500 million unused cell phones being stockpiled 5 in the homes of consumers of the United States. 6 This goes to show that even when 7 offered incentives and free take-back and recycling 8 services, most consumers continue to hold onto their 9 unused cell phones. 10 LG has also researched appliance 11 recycling within the United States. We found that 12 over 97 percent of retailers offer to remove 13 unwanted appliances from consumers' homes when 14 delivering new appliances. 15 This typically is done on a 16 one-for-one same type basis so if the consumer 17 purchased a new refrigerator, the retailer takes 18 back the unwanted refrigerator upon delivery of the 19 new one. 20 We also found that nationwide about 21 84 percent of major appliances were recycled in the 22 Year 2000, and that percentage is still higher in 23 states where landfill bans exist, or there are other 24 restrictions on disposing appliances. 25 Furthermore, we found that there 115 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 exist several routes for which consumers return 3 their unwanted appliances. 4 Through retailers, through special 5 haulers and municipalities, where consumers 6 typically pay a fee for removal, via drop off at 7 solid waste facilities or scrap processors, and via 8 early retirement programs run by electric utilities. 9 In addition, we found that appliance 10 recyclers are willing to pay retailers a nominal fee 11 for their unwanted appliances. 12 LG is still considering whether to 13 become involved in recycling of unwanted appliances, 14 but the current system is matured and seems to be 15 functioning of a high recovery rate. 16 But when LG researched consumer 17 electronic recycling in the United States, we found 18 that the collection, consolidation and recycling 19 infrastructure is immature. 20 Collection and solidation methods 21 vary widely, if they are in place at all. In the 22 case of television, several retailers take back 23 unwanted televisions from the consumers upon 24 installation of new models. In the case of laptop 25 and desktop computers, these may be dropped off or 116 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 mailed back to a manufacturer, donated to charity or 3 taken to a recycler or a scrap dealer. 4 Few recyclers will pick up these 5 products on a local basis. In addition, special 6 collection events are held by municipalities, 7 manufacturers, recyclers, not-for-profit groups, or 8 by a combination of those. 9 Electronic product recycling 10 companies operate primarily on a local or a regional 11 basis, and their methods range from simple 12 disassembly to refurbishing to full recovery of 13 materials and/or parts. Some recyclers simply 14 collect products and ship them overseas where they 15 may be reused, but more often than not these 16 products are recycled in an unsafe, unhealthy and 17 environmentally damaging manner. 18 Some electronic products, such as 19 computers or cell phones, yield very high value in 20 materials, parts or resale value. 21 Typically, the televisions received 22 by recyclers are more than ten years old, and 23 they're often much older. These products have very 24 little retail value, even if in working order. 25 Many of the old televisions received 117 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 are the old style wooden consuls or large rear 3 projection models. In addition, there is only some 4 minor value to be retrieved from televisions by the 5 way of metals and plastics. 6 This is in contrast to computers and 7 cell phones which have short initial consumer usage, 8 relatively small physical size and high materials or 9 resale value. 10 This is why these products must be 11 addressed separately. They have different life 12 spans, physical sizes, reuse opportunities and 13 recycling values. 14 LG prefers a market share approach to 15 television recycling legislation, as opposed to a 16 return share approach. 17 The reason is simple: Market 18 share-based laws allow a level playing field amongst 19 current market players. Return share-based laws 20 allow new entrance to the market, a long-term pass 21 on the cost of recovery and recycling of 22 televisions, resulting in unfair competitive 23 advantages for new television manufacturers, who may 24 disappear from the market before they are forced to 25 pay their share, leaving those manufacturers in the 118 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 US market for the long-term holding the bag. 3 As concerns collection and recycling 4 targets, we suggest that current State programs be 5 studied. I have read much of the previous testimony 6 on the subject before the Committee and it seems 7 that reasonable targets fall in the 25 to 35 percent 8 of sales range. But manufacturers have very little 9 control over the behavior of consumers in a free 10 capital society, consumer owns their electronic 11 products and they can do with them as they please 12 within the constraints of the law. 13 Manufacturers can offer all sorts of 14 incentives and collection opportunities, but it will 15 ultimately be up to the consumer whether they take 16 advantage of those opportunities. 17 We suggest that there is a disconnect 18 between the concepts of responsibility and 19 ownership, unless somehow the legal community wishes 20 to grant manufacturers sole ownership of their 21 products once they become unwanted, the ownership 22 for products sold in this country remains with the 23 consumer. 24 LG also feels that there are some 25 conflicting performance goals in the current version 119 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 of Introduction No. 104-A. On one hand collection 3 recycling targets are given beginning in the year 4 2012, an increase over subsequent periods. But on 5 the other hand, the proposal states, beginning July 6 1st, 2009 or 180 days after manufacturers electronic 7 waste management plan is approved for the 8 Department, whichever is later, such manufacturer 9 must accept for collection, handling and recycling 10 or reuse on a one-to-one basis with the purchase of 11 the same type of covered electronic equipment, other 12 than orphan waste. That one is offered for return by 13 any person in the City, and, two, has been 14 assembled, manufactured or imported by persons other 15 than such manufacturer, or has been sold under the 16 brand name of a person other than such manufacturer. 17 This provision seems to conflict with 18 recycling targets that begin in 2012. Since such a 19 provision would likely result in a very high 20 collection rate, maybe 100 percent, depending on how 21 you look at it, weight versus unit. 22 Also, there is no provision within 23 the bill as to how such goal would be monitored, or 24 for that matter achieved without direct access to 25 the consumer afforded by the retailer. 120 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Explain a little? Retailer shows up, 3 delivers the product, and walks away. The consumer 4 says what do I do with it? They have to find another 5 route. 6 Development of many parallel 7 collection systems in addition to the retailers' 8 reverse distribution systems already in place seems 9 wasteful. 10 Lastly, again referring to the same 11 provision. LG would like clarity on what is meant by 12 the term of the same type. With regard to 13 televisions, does the committee mean that a 14 manufacturer would have to accept a 400 pound consul 15 type 19 inch television when a consumer purchases a 16 30 pound flat panel television from a retailer. 17 Alternatively, does the Committee 18 mean that if a retailer sells a flat panel 19 television, only a flat panel television or roughly 20 the same size is required to be taken in exchange by 21 the manufacturers. 22 We feel this point requires some 23 clarity, if the provision and question remains in 24 the final provision of the law. 25 We wish to thank the Committee for 121 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 its consideration and welcome the opportunity to be 3 of any assistance as needed. 4 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you very 5 much, Mr. McGrady. 6 Next, sir. 7 MR. VALLUZZO: Mr. Chairman, my name 8 is Fran Valluzzo. I am Manager of State and Local 9 Government Relations for Dell. We appreciate the 10 opportunity to appear before this Committee today to 11 comment on Intro. 104-A and the issue of electronic 12 recycling generally. 13 Dell has a long history and has long 14 been involved in the recycling area. We have 15 numerous programs that benefit consumers and benefit 16 the environment. We have a donation program through 17 the National Christina Foundation, which takes 18 usable computers, refurbishes them and puts them 19 back in the system for a possible tax deduction so 20 that the individual can achieve a tax deduction and 21 still do some good by having the computer's life 22 extended and being used by someone who really could 23 use it. 24 We also have recycling programs, the 25 most significant of which the one I think is the 122 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 most benefit to those in New York City, and it is 3 our mail-back program, which allows a consumer to 4 literally print a mailing label from this computer, 5 put it on a box and put an old computer in the box 6 and we will take it back by mail. 7 We have provisions that if you buy a 8 new Dell, we'll take back any brand product, orphan 9 or otherwise, at no cost through this mail-back 10 program. 11 Even if you don't buy a new Dell, 12 we'll take back any Dell branded through this 13 mail-back system. In a City like New York where you 14 have fewer cars and in some other areas more 15 difficulty in getting products like this to a 16 recycling center, this is a good feature. 17 We have a program with Goodwill 18 Industries, called ReConnect, where Goodwill sets up 19 collection centers at their facilities, and we 20 recycle and reuse the products that we collect 21 there, put them back into the system for Goodwill's 22 benefit. And they can either donate the computers or 23 get the benefits from the recycled materials. 24 We're involved in consumer education 25 through the EPA and through our own efforts on our 123 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 own website as well. 3 Let me address the concerns we have 4 with Intro. 104-A, but let me also first say that we 5 appreciate the consideration that the Council has 6 given to our concerns. 7 We have proposed, we have met with 8 the Council members and staff on a number of 9 occasions, we've been treated with courtesy, we have 10 had our -- in good faith had our issues listened to, 11 and we believe that this bill has come a ways. It's 12 still not where it needs to be but a lot of changes 13 that we have suggested have been incorporated in the 14 bill, and we really appreciate the good faith in 15 which the Council has dealt with us in hearing our 16 concerns. 17 Having said that, let me also say 18 that we believe that this is a federal issue. You've 19 got the best bill in the world but it really needs 20 to be applied literally globally. It's a global 21 issue, but at a minimum it requires federal 22 legislation. 23 I appreciate Assemblymember Colton's 24 frustration, you know, in trying to get something 25 through in Albany. I appreciate your frustration in 124 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 not seeing Albany act, we have the same 3 frustrations. We would love to see Congress move a 4 bill, but nothing is happening, as you know. 5 Our issue is really, if you must go 6 in the direction of passing legislation, we believe 7 you should be at the State level. 8 We really reluctantly don't want to 9 see dozens of municipalities create different 10 programs that each manufacturer in a global market 11 has to comply with. 12 Let me address two key points on 13 104-A that make the bill unacceptable to us and 14 really prevent us from supporting it. 15 The first is performance standards. I 16 would echo what's been said by the Department of 17 Sanitation. We believe that providing, mandating an 18 achievement of a minimum collection rate is 19 arbitrary and unreasonable, because there is really 20 no substantive data to determine what is a 21 reasonable collection rate. We believe that the 22 collection program should be operated for at least 23 five years to develop some data and then go back and 24 take a look at, okay, we need to take a look at what 25 should the standard collection rate be, based upon 125 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 the real world of data that we're collecting. 3 A manufacturer cannot meet a minimum 4 collection rate if consumers simply refuse to give 5 up their devices. We should not be penalized for 6 human nature, where people, for a variety of 7 reasons, don't want to give up their computers. 8 Maybe it's their hard drive has personal financial 9 information on it, maybe they think their 10 granddaughter may be able to use it some day, if it 11 still has some usable life. Maybe it's just 12 lethargy. We're trying to make it as easy and as 13 cheap and as convenient as possible for people to do 14 it, but we can't bust into their houses and take 15 their computers away from them in order to meet an 16 artificial standard set by this law. 17 We believe that mandatory actions by 18 the manufacturers, not arbitrary results, are the 19 way to go, and we would point to the Dell mail-back 20 program as one such system that really does address 21 the issue of making it convenient enough, and giving 22 people the incentive to give up their old computers. 23 The second area we have a problem 24 with is the program scope and applicability. We 25 believe that the scope and applicability of the 126 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 program is much too broad. We strongly support 3 providing recycling services to household consumers 4 at no charge, but Intro. 104-A goes way behind that 5 and extends it to all consumers, including business, 6 non-profits, government and other entities. 7 Requiring manufacturers to provide 8 free recycling to all customers, will overwhelm the 9 current system that many manufacturers like Dell 10 have in place for household consumers, causing 11 confusion and frustration among those consumers as 12 well as others. 13 And it's important to note, Mr. 14 Chairman, that no state has passed an electronics 15 recycling law that has provided for such broad 16 applicability as does Intro. 104-A. Much has been 17 made of the Minnesota law that has been passed 18 recently. The Minnesota law applies only to 19 household customers and does not include business, 20 government, non-profits and virtually all those who 21 use computers. That's an important distinction I 22 think that we need to look at. 23 Business in governments currently 24 must comply with federal and state resource 25 recycling and conservation laws, and so they are 127 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 managing end-of-life issues as part of doing 3 business. 4 They also can avail themselves of the 5 manufacturer's product recover services. Dell has a 6 very active business called "Asset Recovery 7 Services," we provide secured data protection for 8 old computers, for recycled computers, transfer data 9 to new systems, and a variety of other disposal, 10 high-value disposal products. 11 The landfill ban that was mentioned 12 earlier also further incent business to purchase 13 product recovery services for manufacturers or other 14 vendors, because they can no longer dispose of these 15 in the landfills. 16 The provisions in the bill to allow a 17 charge for services under a contractual arrangement 18 is essentially meaningless, since the business has 19 no incentive whatsoever to purchase product recovery 20 services for a fee if the law requires manufacturers 21 to provide the services at no charge. 22 Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the 23 opportunity to present our views, not only in this 24 forum, but over the course of the months in the 25 past, and we look forward to working with you in the 128 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 future to try to develop a law that will benefit all 3 New Yorkers. Thank you. 4 MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, Council 5 Member Jackson, my name is Zachary Bernstein of the 6 law firm Menatt, Phelps and Phillips, representing 7 the Hewlett-Packard Company. 8 Thank you for giving Hewlett-Packard 9 the opportunity to submit this testimony. While we 10 applaud the City Council's effort to encourage the 11 recycling of electronic equipment, HP cannot endorse 12 local legislation on this issue. The most effective 13 regulation should be enacted at the federal level, 14 if not, at least at the State level, and not on the 15 basis of a one-city approach. 16 If New York City chooses to enact its 17 own legislation, we make the following five 18 recommendations: 19 1) Performance standards are not 20 feasible. The bill requires each manufacturer to 21 recycle a pro rata share of its average annual sales 22 in New York City. This standard is unworkable and 23 should be omitted. Manufacturers cannot require the 24 user's recycle equipment. A given manufacturer would 25 be penalized because its customers choose not to 129 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 recycle. 3 There also is no fair and accurate 4 way to measure sales in New York City alone, due to 5 the wide range of supply chains. The Department of 6 Sanitation is also not equipped to measure market 7 share. 8 Along these lines the reporting 9 requirement for New York City sales data is not 10 realistic or feasible. The appropriate standard is 11 to require manufacturers to offer recycling of all 12 company-branded covered equipment, regardless of 13 what percentage of sales this represents. 14 HP has one of the most successful 15 examples of such a take-back program, which has been 16 acclaimed in the environmental community. Yet, there 17 is no assurance that this program would comply with 18 the proposed New York City requirement. 19 HP may be forced to have one program 20 that works for the entire country and another New 21 York City only program. 22 Having separate systems for consumers 23 depending on which city they reside in will cause 24 confusion and increase the cost of products. 25 In the event that any performance 130 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 standards are included, they should be based on the 3 amount of electronics actually returned for 4 recycling. 5 2) definitions of various terms in 6 the bill must be added or clarified. Our written 7 testimony includes suggested definitions. 8 Importantly, HP strongly suggests that for the first 9 year following the effective date, covered equipment 10 should include only televisions, computer monitor 11 and notebook computers. 12 3) Qualified entities should be 13 consumers and home businesses. Not-for-profit 14 organizations and for-profit businesses need to 15 accept that recycling used electronic equipment is 16 the cost of doing business. 17 HP and other manufacturers already 18 offer take-back services to business customers and 19 institutions. 20 With respect to the delivery 21 requirements, it should be noted that a number of 22 manufacturers have significant collection programs 23 currently in place. To force adoption of new systems 24 is overly burdensome and costly. Any legislation 25 must allow manufacturers to manage their own 131 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 collection systems. 3 4) reporting requirements should be 4 for total weight of electronics that is recycled. 5 Information on the way to each type of electronic 6 equipment, as currently required by the bill, has no 7 practical or legal significance under the proposed 8 law. It is extremely expensive and burdensome to 9 sort and separately weigh each type of equipment; 10 and 11 5) a preemption provision should be 12 included to encourage uniform legislation. 13 A preemption provision is important 14 to assist in the achievement of uniformed consistent 15 electronic equipment recycling programs across the 16 State or the country. A uniformed State or federal 17 program will provide a sound program for New York 18 City. 19 Thank you for your consideration of 20 these comments. 21 MR. MANDELKER: Chairman McMahon, 22 Council Member Jackson, my name is Lawrence 23 Mandelker. I'm a country lawyer trying to make my 24 way to the big City. 25 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Tell me about 132 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 it. 3 MR. MANDELKER: I will tell you. I'm 4 testifying on behalf of the New York Metropolitan 5 Retail Association, known as NYMRA. 6 Our members are national chain 7 retailers operating in the City of New York. Many of 8 our members sell covered electronic equipment, 9 several of them do so under their own brand name. 10 We have testified twice before 11 concerning this bill and its predecessor. We're 12 mindful of the sensitivity of the Committee to the 13 concerns expressed on those occasions. As in the 14 past, we are in general agreement with the 15 conceptual framework of manufacturer responsibility 16 being proposed. 17 Nevertheless, because most of our 18 members, all of our members operate nationally and 19 develop their business practices on that basis, and 20 because of the cross border aspects of distributing 21 and selling consumer electronics, we would much 22 prefer to see a uniform national approach to the 23 important task of handling electronic equipment at 24 the end of its life. But if the City is prepared to 25 pass its own version of a management of electronics 133 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 bill, we support the approach you are considering. 3 However, we urge the Council to provide a sunset 4 provision in the event that various State and 5 national efforts result in the adoption of a law 6 governing recycling of electronic equipment in New 7 York City. 8 Scope. Management of electronic waste 9 is extremely challenging and involves a balancing of 10 many different interests. We believe that at the 11 outset New York City should concentrate on household 12 weight and that the scope of electronics addressed 13 be minimized in order to address this program in a 14 way that (a) it's most easily attained, (b) provides 15 benefits to the consumer; and (3) will most benefit 16 the environment. 17 Our recommendation is to align the 18 definition of covered equipment more closely to what 19 was passed in Minnesota, and we know that what 20 passed in Minnesota is what we want to pass here. At 21 least that's what I heard earlier. 22 The Minnesota law covers video 23 display devices with a screen size greater than nine 24 inches. These devices present the largest source of 25 lead, mercury, chromium, cadmium and beryllium. If 134 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 we can get the management of these devices, 3 electronic waste right, it will be relatively easy 4 to add on peripherals and smaller devices. 5 Definitions. In large part, because 6 many of my members are not -- some of my members are 7 not only retailers but would be considered 8 manufacturers because of their private label brands. 9 We would like to comment on how the term 10 manufacturer should be defined in the bill. 11 Mr. McMahon, because of the time, do 12 you want me to rely on these definitions just on the 13 written submission, rather than read it here? 14 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Yes. 15 MR. MANDELKER: Okay. 16 These definitions would allow those 17 of my members that are brand owners to be 18 responsible for their product. Under the previous 19 definition it wasn't clear whether the product owner 20 or the licensee would be responsible. 21 My members that own private label 22 brands want to have this responsibility, and not to 23 have the responsibility on those that may possess a 24 license. 25 Performance standards. We're troubled 135 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 by the concept of performance standards as 3 articulated in Section 16-424. It's the same reasons 4 that everyone else has articulated, but we have a 5 proposed solution, and that is this: We think one 6 should determine how much a manufacturer collects 7 over a calendar year and compare it with the 8 manufacturer's national marketshare with the 9 previous calendar year, extrapolated against the 10 City's population. 11 A manufacturer would receive a credit 12 collecting over and above its marketshare. In other 13 words, the amount of covered waste to be collected 14 is X. Manufacturer A has 20 percent of the market. 15 Whatever X is, manufacturer A is responsible for 16 collecting 20 percent of X. That's how we would 17 propose to work it. The manufacturer would receive a 18 credit for collecting over and above its 19 marketshare, the credit could either be carried over 20 to the next year, redeemed for cash, or sold. A 21 manufacturer would be charged for failing to collect 22 its market share. 23 Compliance. NYMRA and our national 24 partner, the Consumer Electronics Retailers 25 Coalition, have previously shared with the members 136 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 of the Committee our concerns regarding the 3 practicalities surrounding the ability of retailers 4 to comply with this law, i.e., the labeling 5 requirement. 6 If the requirement that manufacturers 7 label each and every item sold in the United States 8 were to be imposed by federal law, that concern 9 would be ameliorated. But it cannot be overstated 10 how difficult it is for retailers that rely on 11 national distribution to properly allocate products 12 to jurisdictions with varying laws, to be sure that 13 the covered equipment they sell has been properly 14 labeled by the manufacturer. 15 In the absence of that approach, it 16 is very difficult -- that approach meaning the 17 national approach -- consumers will not purchase new 18 devices from open cartons and the costs and 19 difficulty of unsealing and resealing cartons to 20 confirm that each and every item is properly labeled 21 would be overly burdensome to any retailer. 22 The Department should be required to 23 notify retailers when manufacturers, electronic 24 waste management plans are either approved or 25 disapproved. And retailers should be able to rely 137 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 upon such notification by the City that the 3 manufacturers of the items either are or not in 4 compliance with the law with respect to labeling. 5 Finally, retailers should not be 6 required to maintain and disseminate at the point of 7 sale, the recycling plans for dozens of 8 manufacturers of the hundreds of items of covered 9 equipment that they sell.retailers, though, totally 10 support playing an important role in consumer 11 education. We are ready to assist the Department in 12 promoting information and providing information on 13 recycling options for consumers, whether that is 14 referring them to the departments or to the 15 manufacturers' website or toll free numbers or other 16 relevant information, either through our websites or 17 other practical and feasible means of sharing 18 information. 19 I just want to add one thing here. 20 There are two approaches. There is the approach of 21 you beat the manufacturers by having these 22 performance standards and say we're going to find 23 you unless you somehow get these consumers to turn 24 the equipment over for recycling. Or you can trust 25 the people. Trust the people. You know, a year ago 138 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 you never saw the word "green" in a commercial, 3 except for one of these lawn renew it things. You 4 never heard the word "sustainable" in a commercial, 5 and now green and sustainable are in every 6 commercial, anybody who is selling any product, any 7 service, it's green, it's sustainable. The time for 8 recycling has come. The time for consumers to know 9 about it has come. The time for consumers to be 10 sensitive to the requirement has come. If we give 11 them the education, and the manufacturers give them 12 the means, by means of these plans, you're going to 13 get it, because people want to do the right thing. 14 Not because it's a mandate, but because we live 15 here, and our children and our grandchildren are 16 going to live here. 17 I thank the Committee for this 18 opportunity to testify. I hope that my comments will 19 be taken into consideration as you move forward. 20 Should you need any assistance that NYMRA is able to 21 provide, we will be more than happy to do so. 22 Thank you, again. 23 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Mr. 24 Mandelker. It's always good to have a plain country 25 lawyer come before this Committee and give us an 139 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 eloquent and spirited presentation on the basic 3 goodness of humankind. 4 And I don't disagree with you, it's 5 just the question seems that if the companies are so 6 committed to doing this, then I'm not quite sure why 7 the performance standards present such an obstacle. 8 And certainly, as you say, if they make part of 9 their advertising the notion that recycling is 10 available on a higher level, that they would have no 11 problem reaching those goals. 12 Gentlemen from the computer 13 companies, how do you intend to comply with the 14 Minnesota performance standards? 15 MR. VALLUZZO: We are still in the 16 process of trying to develop a plan that will 17 satisfy the Minnesota law. 18 We are actively working with our 19 partner in other states, Goodwill Industries, to see 20 if we can get a statewide Goodwill industries 21 partnership going in Minnesota. We think that will 22 help provide the collection points, will help us to 23 reach the level. 24 But I'm going to be quite honest. I 25 believe that Dell and perhaps other companies, will 140 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 be writing checks to the State of Minnesota for 3 quite some time, and maybe that's what they 4 designed. Maybe that's what they plan. By penalizing 5 us for not being able to reach an inflated standard, 6 for which there is no basis in data to impose, we 7 believe we're basically taking away resources that 8 could be invested in recycling programs. 9 To answer your question, we are 10 struggling with that and we may end up not being 11 able to attain that objective because it is 12 unrealistic. 13 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: I seem to have 14 tickled your funnybone with that question. 15 MR. McGRADY: You did. You did. 16 Because something about Minnesota, its law really 17 bothers me; and that is, they base the 18 responsibility on TV, monitor computer 19 manufacturers, but then as your covered electronic 20 products that you can recycle, they give you 21 printers, fascimile, you know, things that we don't 22 manufacturer. And here is the interesting thing: 23 they say, well, you know, we think we make this 60 24 percent, but not without recycling things that you 25 don't even manufacture. And this is interesting. How 141 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 did we get here? 3 It seems to say, well, we set these 4 really hard targets, see, they can make them, but 5 we're recycling other people's products. How does 6 that go toward extended producer responsibility? 7 What do we learn? We're being penalized, all right? 8 This is punitive. I don't like it very much. 9 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: And that's not 10 in compliance with your spirit, your thoughts of the 11 spirit of the American capitalistic market for sure, 12 the free market. 13 MR. McGRADY: Absolutely not. 14 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: All right. 15 And, yes, the New York City standard 16 would start at much less than Minnesota standard. 17 Does that make a difference? 18 MR. MANDELKER: Well, I think it does. 19 And now I'm only speaking for my members who sell 20 their own brands who would be considered 21 manufacturers. And the problem is, we don't know if 22 the standards are too low or too high, because 23 nobody has the data, and to say you're going to 24 delay the implementation of it for three years while 25 you collect the data, better to do that, have the 142 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 standards that we're suggesting, and then if you 3 find as a result of what is collected and as a 4 result of what data is going on that you need higher 5 standards in order to make it work, particularly as 6 you're adding other peripherals, that's how you do 7 it. It's sort of like a basic due process argument. 8 How do you punish, even though it's a civil 9 punishment, how do you punish somebody who does the 10 best that they can do -- 11 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Well, you've 12 allocated marketshare, and that's what we've got, 13 marketshare. 14 MR. MANDELKER: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: So, how are we 16 punishing you? 17 MR. MANDELKER: Because what you're 18 doing is you're saying, you're not basing it on, 19 really basing it on marketshare, because marketshare 20 would say I sold X percent last year, and I've 21 collected either X percent this year, or less than X 22 percent or more than X percent. That's not what you 23 have. 24 What you have is you're saying, 25 because of your marketshare, we're going to throw 143 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 you into categories and you have to collect these 3 certain percentages, and what you should really do 4 is percentage to percentage, process to process. Let 5 the system work and then, if at the end of your 6 three-year period you find that you're not getting 7 the response that you need, then you need different 8 kind of incentives. Because if you find that the 9 manufacturers -- you see, if the manufacturers do 10 everything that they're supposed to do, they give 11 you plans, they have the convenience stuff in it, 12 they have all these wonderful plans that we've heard 13 of, and it's not working. Then you have to say, 14 well, why is it not working? What more can the 15 manufacturers do? Unless the idea is just to say, 16 okay, we're going to tax the manufacturers, we're 17 just going to take the money from the manufacturers, 18 and if we're going to say that, you know, say that. 19 But I don't think that's what you're 20 saying. I think we're trying to get this stuff 21 collected and out of the waste stream, and all we're 22 saying is let people try their best. Give them the 23 standards of what it means, the actions that they 24 have to take to try their best, and then look over 25 the next few years and see what happens with it. 144 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: I think if those 3 performance standards aren't looming at the end of 4 that road that you describe, then what incentive is 5 there really to try them, other than come back here 6 in three years and have a whole another discussion 7 about it, and then we'll be in a position, well, 8 we'll try to make the retailers do it and that will 9 be terrible too. 10 MR. MANDELKER: No, you definitely 11 don't want to go there. 12 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Heaven forbid. 13 You've got to point to those guys. 14 MR. MANDELKER: Definitely, but you're 15 going to be here in three years. 16 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: No, I won't be 17 here in three years, sadly. Sadly. 18 MR. MANDELKER: You institutionally 19 are going to be here. 20 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Yes. 21 MR. MANDELKER: The Council will be 22 here in three years, and the Council is going to be 23 looking. And the advocates are going to be here in 24 three years -- 25 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: And the 145 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 manufacturers will be back in three years saying, 3 look, didn't we try this? It hasn't worked, we've 4 got these things looming because of that stick that 5 you've described. We've tried our best, it can work 6 or it can't work and it can be reconsidered then. 7 But I think many feel that if they 8 don't loom those performance standards, then there 9 will won't be the compliance. 10 MR. MANDELKER: Politically it's 11 harder to unmake -- 12 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Politically -- 13 MR. MANDELKER: Politically it's 14 harder -- 15 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Politically it 16 would be easier to make the retailers do it. 17 MR. MANDELKER: No, politically -- and 18 then pass it on to consumers, and have an unmandated 19 tax? No, sir. But I think that to make an omelet in 20 three years, and to unmake an omelet, and that's 21 what we're saying. 22 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Okay. 23 Yes, Mr. McGrady. 24 MR. McGRADY: May I address one thing 25 that was said, actually in previous testimony and 146 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 today. 3 There is this idea about the digital 4 transition, and being a television manufacturer, you 5 know, I would love to see these forecasts where this 6 huge number of televisions is going to be purchased. 7 Because in our forecasting and in our market 8 research, we're not seeing more than seven, eight 9 percent, okay? Now, this is the interesting thing. 10 The other part of this, and I'm not trying to argue 11 against doing what you're doing, because I do want 12 you to do it, the other part of this, though, is 13 that there is some idea that the manufacturers are 14 going back into their caves and saying, ooh, how do 15 we stick everybody with our product. That's 16 absolutely a mischaracterization of the way things 17 go. We're actually trying to figure out a problem 18 here. 19 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: So, you're 20 advocating to make the retailers do it? 21 MR. McGRADY: Oh, yes, absolutely. 22 Retailers all the way. 23 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Council Member 24 Jackson has a problem. 25 MR. McGRADY: I'm kidding. 147 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: A problem and a 3 question. 4 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Thank you. 5 Well, let me thank you for coming and giving your 6 points of view on this matter. And I just, I heard 7 you say, you know, it should be federal, we 8 shouldn't have to deal with 100 different cities 9 passing different laws and what have you, and if not 10 federal, it should be state. Well, let me just ask 11 you, if they don't act, shouldn't we act? Shouldn't 12 we act if they don't act? 13 MR. McGRADY: I think absolutely. 14 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay. So, 15 that's what we're doing. We're acting, and what we 16 feel is most appropriate. And I hear what the 17 suggestions that you're all making, and hopefully 18 all of those will be considered in legislation. But 19 I also heard in the previous testimony that 20 threshhold percentage I think is 2.5 percent? 21 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: .25. 22 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: .25, versus, 23 you know, what the manufacturers say that is 24 acceptable, of what 3.3 or something I heard in the 25 testimony? So, this is lower than what manufacturers 148 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 have said that they could handle; isn't that 3 correct? 4 MR. VALLUZZO: I'd like to comment. 5 I'm not sure where that number -- it was .33 I 6 believe was the number, we've been trying to figure 7 out where that statistic came from, and I believe we 8 have someone who later on this afternoon may be able 9 to address that from the organization that 10 supposedly is where it originated. 11 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: From where it 12 originated, I see. 13 MR. VALLUZZO: The Consumer 14 Electronics Association. And we are members of that, 15 but I've got to tell you, I have no idea where that 16 number came from. 17 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I just think 18 that, you know, I think I've heard hearings before 19 where people say there should be federal 20 legislation. It should be done at the federal level. 21 And if not, at the State level. And I'm saying, 22 okay, okay, yes. There should be a minimum standard 23 at those levels, but if in fact there isn't, then we 24 need to act. 25 MR. VALLUZZO: Dell has acted on its 149 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 own, as have many other companies. We're not waiting 3 for federal, State or local action. I totally agree 4 with you. If we can't get federal or State action, 5 something must be done. We're actually doing it as a 6 company. HP is doing it, others are doing it as a 7 company to deal with this issue. Our concern is a 8 patchwork. 9 Now, if we have a consistent 10 convenient, efficient, effective process where 11 manufacturers pay for the cost of recycling, 12 implement the programs and don't have punitive 13 provisions imposed upon them, I think it can work. 14 I think a bigger concern here is that 15 this type of legislation, as much as the fact that 16 it's a local government, I think my bigger concern 17 with the local government doing it and the municipal 18 government doing it, is the inconsistency from 19 jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 20 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: I understand. 21 Well, as you know, this is one of the 22 largest jurisdictions in the world. 23 MR. VALLUZZO: Bigger than most 24 states. No, I appreciate that, and believe me, we 25 are supportive of the ultimate objective. 150 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON: Okay, thank 3 you. 4 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you all 5 very much, gentlemen. Thanks for coming in. 6 Okay, next is Ramon Cruz from 7 Environmental Defense Fund; Ryan Key of NYPIRG, Dave 8 Smith from WeRecycle, Inc., and Jasmine Hupp, from 9 Tekserve. 10 I would ask you, we want to hear from 11 you all, but keep in mind if you're repeating 12 something, what someone else said, you can maybe say 13 me too as to that point. 14 Thank you. You are here for Ramon 15 Cruz? 16 MS. SINDING: Yes, Ramon had to 17 unfortunately leave for a meeting. 18 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Identify 19 yourself again, Ms. Sending. 20 MS. SINDING sorry. Kate Sending from 21 the Natural Resources Defense Council. 22 He did just ask me to make one very 23 quick point on ED's behalf, which is the consistency 24 of this bill with both the Solid Waste Management 25 Plan, that the Council and Administration worked so 151 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 hard together to develop, and which is such an 3 important piece of legislation, as well as the 4 Mayor's Initiative in PlaNYC, and to make the point 5 that enacting this legislation as drafted and 6 signing it into law would further both of those 7 efforts. 8 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Tell Mr. Cruz 9 that's a message that has to be heard on both ends 10 of this august building. 11 Go ahead, sir. 12 MR. KEY: All right. Good afternoon, 13 Chairman McMahon. My name is Ryan Key, and I'm a 14 Project Coordinator for NYPIRG, the New York Public 15 Interest Research Group, and I work exclusively with 16 Borough of Manhattan Community College students. 17 NYPIRG is New York's largest 18 non-profit environmental and consumer advocacy 19 organization with more than 20 offices across the 20 State of New York, including chapters in each of the 21 five boroughs. And NYPIRG has a long history of 22 advocating for waste prevention and recycling at 23 both the City and State level, and quite honestly, 24 my testimony, many points have been echoed 25 throughout the afternoon, so just in an effort to 152 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 keep it timely, I'll just make a few quick remarks. 3 I just want to thank the Council 4 personally for this opportunity to testify in 5 support of the electronic equipment -- 6 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Hold on one 7 second, Mr. Key. 8 MR. KEY: Yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Could we please 10 have quiet in the Chamber. 11 If you have an important discussion, 12 please go out into the foyer. Thank you. 13 MR. KEY: Thank you, Chairman. 14 -- The electronic equipment 15 collection recycling and reuse act, proposed Intro. 16 104-A, and we commend the City Council for advancing 17 a program that makes manufacturers responsible for 18 the collection or recycling of electronic waste, and 19 contains performance standards that we see as both 20 ambitious and achievable. 21 Currently New York City residents 22 have limited options for the safe disposal or 23 recycling of electronic waste and New York City is 24 one of the few municipalities in the State that does 25 not have a household hazardous waste collection 153 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 program. 3 Consequently, most discarded 4 electronics end up in the waste stream. A 5 substantial portion of the lead, mercury, cadmium 6 and other heavy metals entering the waste stream 7 come from electronic waste, as has been said 8 throughout the afternoon. 9 In addition to its public health and 10 environmental benefits, NYPIRG is particularly 11 interested in the passage of Intro. 104-A, because 12 we believe this bill could serve as a model for the 13 State of New York. 14 In recent years the State Legislature 15 is taking positive steps to introduce the toxicity 16 of New York's waste stream, such as banning the sale 17 of consumer products containing mercury. 18 But the State Legislature has failed 19 to address the growing problem of electronic waste. 20 There are at least half a dozen different e-waste 21 bills pending in Albany as of now, and New York 22 City's leadership could help spur the legislature to 23 finally take action on this critically important 24 issue. 25 Intro. 104-A embraces many key 154 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 principles, such as extended producer 3 responsibility, which we believe should be included 4 in any Statewide e-waste legislation. 5 NYPIRG urges the City Council to 6 adopt this measure in its current form as soon as 7 possible. Electronics are the fastest-growing 8 component of the residential waste stream, and with 9 this changeover of television that we've been 10 talking about, New Yorkers will be discarding 11 obsolete televisions in the coming year. 12 By adopting this forward-thinking 13 legislation, New York City will not only be prepared 14 with a solution to this problem, it can set an 15 example for the State, as well as the nation. 16 Thank you, again, for this 17 opportunity to testify. 18 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Mr. 19 Key. 20 MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Chairman 21 McMahon. Thank you for the opportunity to give 22 testimony this afternoon. I'm here representing a 23 company named "WeRecycle." WeRecycle is a leader in 24 the electronic recycling industry, with a 25 state-of-the-art facility in New York metropolitan 155 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 area, and is also nationally recognized as a 3 responsible and efficient recycler, with 4 long-standing relationships with private industry, 5 including original equipment manufacturers, 6 institutional and municipal entities. 7 Our programs for recycling 8 electronics are flexible, and are designed to 9 facilitate partnerships between manufacturers, the 10 City and businesses that provide responsible 11 collection and handling services to develop and 12 implement, as well as promote safe, effective and 13 responsible electronics recycling systems. 14 New York State Empire State 15 Development fully supported our expansion to Mount 16 Vernon, New York last year and awarded WeRecycle a 17 substantial grant that facilitated our ability to 18 install a large industrial shredder for electronics. 19 Our facility alone has the capacity 20 to recycle about 35 to 40 million pounds of 21 electronics each year. Based on reasonable 22 estimates, each New York City resident generates 23 about three pounds of electronics waste per year, 24 with approximately, in our estimation it's probably 25 a little high, about 10 million residents. That is 156 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 about 30 million pounds per year of electronics that 3 may be generated as a result of this legislation. 4 This volume is well below our New 5 York facility's current processing capacity. 6 Going a little further and using 7 WeRecycle as an example of the infrastructure that 8 currently exists in the New York Metro area, it is 9 reasonable to say that there is an existing 10 infrastructure to support a comprehensive 11 electronics recycling program consistent with the 12 goals of New York City and this Council. 13 As a company, we feel confident in 14 our ability to provide electronics recycling and 15 reuse collection system that is convenient and 16 minimize the burden to consumers of electronic 17 equipment and to the City. 18 We also experience in supporting the 19 collection of equipment that results from the 20 passage of legislation. We have been operating as an 21 approved consolidator and recycler for three years 22 in the State of Maine. Maine was the second state to 23 adopt e-waste legislation. 24 This experience allows us to directly 25 support manufacturers to develop and submit an 157 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 electronics waste management plan for the 3 collection, handling, and recycling or reuse of 4 covered electronic equipment and meeting the 5 required performance standards were they included. 6 The resources are in place right now 7 to manage an efficient, multi-faceted collection 8 approach, whether it be residential, urban, within 9 the City or in a high-rise building, commercial, 10 regardless, to serve the needs of the residents of 11 New York City, despite the challenges with the 12 physical layout of the housing, and we do so in a 13 cost effective manner. 14 So, to conclude, the capacity, as 15 well as the capability to implement an integrated 16 approach to electronics recycling and to 17 aggressively promote effective, secure and 18 responsible recycling and reuse of all electronic 19 waste generated from the City as a result of the 20 passage of this bill is in place. 21 Thank you for the opportunity to 22 provide this testimony. 23 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Mr. 24 Smith. 25 Ms. Hupp. 158 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 MS. HUPP: My name is Jazmin Hupp. I'm 3 a Manager at Tekserve. We're a local electronics 4 retailer, with the leading Apple computer, 5 independent Apple computer retailer in New York 6 City. We've been in Chelsea since 1987. 7 Last year we took back about 3,000 8 computers and ipods from our customers. We have no 9 permanent recycling program in place. We disassemble 10 the computers and ipods to try and reuse as many 11 parts as possible. We destroy the hard drives to 12 protect our customers' data, but there is nowhere 13 for those electronics to go. 14 Unfortunately, Apple excludes us from 15 the take-back program that they use at their Apple 16 stores and their Apple on-line webstores, so the 17 rest of the computers and equipment end up in the 18 trash. 19 We've looked into various recycling 20 options in the City. The only thing that came close 21 was a program through a non-profit organization 22 named Priscolas, that would charge us about $40,000 23 a year to dispose of these items and pick them up on 24 a weekly basis. 25 As you know, in New York City we do 159 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 not have the space to mass a large amount of 3 electronics to make it cost effective for different 4 disposal programs. 5 Manufacturers, on the other hand, are 6 in the best possible position to enact a 7 manufacturing program, whereas we have about 175 8 employees at Tekserve, which obviously is dwarfed by 9 another manufacturer. We notice that even Apple, 10 after Apple started its take-back program for its 11 stores, they started manufacturing the first mercury 12 free lcds and the first bromine free circuit board, 13 and we've seen through the economy that having the 14 market incentives to produce better products, the 15 manufacturers will do that naturally. 16 I give one example of this, in my 17 mind, the worst manufacturing industry right now is 18 for printer manufacturing. One of our most popular 19 printers is the Epsom R280. It's a $99 printer, 20 which after rebate is $29. The printer ink for that 21 printer has six different inks, it comes in little 22 packages, and a new set of ink for the printer is 23 $92. So, it's about the same cost to buy a new 24 printer as it is to refill the ink in your current 25 printer. And that cost is obviously artificially low 160 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 because the manufacturers aren't taking 3 responsibility for the waste that replacing your 4 electronics is costing. 5 It has been said that this bill 6 should be passed on the State or federal level 7 first. I ask the Committee, when has New York ever 8 been afraid of being first? Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you all 10 very much. 11 Okay, our next panel is Parker Brugge 12 from the Consumer Electronics Association; Richard 13 Goss from the Electronics Manufacturers; Justin 14 Wright from the American Electronics Association; 15 Ms. Wills from General Electric; and Meggan Ehret 16 from Thompson. 17 I just want to, in the spirit of full 18 disclosure, say that some of the people who are here 19 today are representing companies that are 20 represented by my brother as lobbyist. And under the 21 rules of the Conflict of Interest Board that's 22 something that I should disclose upon voting how 23 ever I feel, because I'm chairing this Committee 24 that I mention it now as well in the spirit of full 25 disclosure. It does not affect the conduct of this 161 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 hearing or the outcome of this issue, but it's 3 something that we always feel it's best to be fully 4 disclosed. 5 So, having said that, would you like 6 to begin? 7 MS. EHRET: Hi. Thank you, Chairman. I 8 want to applaud the efforts of the Sanitation and 9 Solid Waste Management Committee for holding this 10 hearing. Thank you very much. 11 My name is Meggan Ehret. I'm a Senior 12 Counsel at Thomson. I also serve as its Corporate 13 Secretary. Many of the things I will say today in my 14 written testimony have already been said, so in the 15 interest of time, let me just echo two key points. 16 First let me tell you a little bit 17 about Thomson. It is the world leader in digital 18 technologies. It used to be a TV manufacturer, has 19 been out of the business now for almost four years. 20 Today we provide technology systems, 21 services and equipment to our media and 22 entertainment industries. He purchased from, just a 23 little bit of background, in '86, GE acquired RCA in 24 a stock transaction. In '87 we acquired certain 25 assets from GE that were certain consumer electronic 162 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 assets, including the TV business. In 2004, we sold 3 the TV assets and have since that time been exiting 4 the consumer electronics industry. 5 So, the two points that I would like 6 to highlight, and in the interest of time I will be 7 very brief, is that the products are different. 8 Relevant for the discussion of Intro. 104, TVs and 9 computers, pretty significant differences, product 10 life, market economics, residual value and product 11 portability. And with televisions, different from 12 IT, but with televisions, a marketshare allocation 13 is what levels the playing field. It's the most fair 14 approach for the TV manufacturers, allocating the 15 cost to the current manufacturers based on their 16 respective share of the marketplace. 17 I very much appreciate your time. I 18 will submit my written testimony. Have a lovely day. 19 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Why don't, Ms. 20 Wills, you go second because you're from GE, so 21 there's certain order there. 22 MS. WILLS: Thank you. I'm Sarah 23 Wills. I'm the Manager of Government Relations for 24 the Northeast for General Electric. Thank you, Mr. 25 Chairman, for allowing me to testify today. 163 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 I would also like to say, to echo 3 someone else's testimony earlier today, I found not 4 only yourself but Carmen, and other members of the 5 Committee, specifically the bill's sponsor, to be 6 very respectful in hearing out our views on this 7 bill, and I appreciate it. 8 And also in the interest of time, as 9 the hour grows late. I will echo my colleague from 10 Thomson Corporation, her comments regarding the 11 marketshare allocation. Our interest in seeing a 12 bifurcated bill where computers and IT equipment are 13 under a return share model, and televisions would be 14 under a market share model. But, again, in the 15 interest of time I'll just concur with Ms. Ehret's 16 testimony. 17 The rest of my comments are provided 18 in my written testimony, and I'm happy to go ahead 19 and just submit that and let them lie. 20 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Ms. 21 Wills. 22 MS. WILLS: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you. Now, 24 market share, as we have it in the bill is what you 25 advocate for, or separate shares for televisions 164 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 versus -- 3 MS. EHRET: What you have in the bill 4 now I would still view as more of a return 5 share-type system. What it requires is if your 6 product, if you made the product and you're still in 7 business, which take Thomson, for example, sold 8 televisions for a certain number of years and are 9 still in business, but you require Thomson to take 10 responsibility for that, establish a collection 11 network, transport and recycle those products, we 12 don't have any ongoing business interest, and we 13 don't have any way of offsetting any of those costs. 14 We have no incentive for designing for the 15 environment. All of the things that you talk about 16 that motivate manufacturers don't apply to us. 17 You also have a one-to-one ratio in 18 there based on the number, it's a sell and equal 19 number -- excuse me, recycle and equal number that 20 you sell, those don't apply to us. All of what they 21 referred to today as performance standards don't 22 apply to Thomson. What Thomson would ask is that you 23 take, I think it's the gentlemen from the Retailers 24 Coalition said, you figure out what X is. Whatever 25 the cost of recycling television is X, and depending 165 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 on your percentage of the market, so if you are 3 lucky enough to dominate 20 percent of the TV 4 industry, then you pay 20 percent of that. And you 5 can still do what you want to do. I spent some time 6 speaking with you guys, I understand you do not 7 want, the City does not want to play a role in 8 collecting, transporting or recycling. You can still 9 set up, and in fact, I think Toshiba, Sharp and 10 Panasonic, recent announcement of their TPO to meet 11 the Minnesota obligations is a great example of how 12 that could work here in New York City. 13 If you have a manufacturer set up a 14 system to collect, transport and recycle, but those 15 costs are allocated based on market share, and you 16 look only to current market participants. 17 As we've discussed before, that takes 18 a new market entrance and requires them to pay for 19 the cost of recycling today, because history has 20 demonstrated, unfortunately for them they're 21 probably not going to be around in 15 years from now 22 when the product hits the waste stream, so their 23 product becomes an orphan product under Intro. 104. 24 But there should be no concept of an orphan product 25 for televisions. It should take all TVs regardless 166 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 of brand, recycle them, figure out the cost and then 3 allocate that based on the market participants. 4 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Okay, I 5 understand your point. Okay, gentlemen. Do you want 6 to start, sir, on the left? 7 MR. GOSS: Sure. Thank you, Mr. 8 Chairman. Richard Goss, Vice President of 9 Environmental Sustainability with the Information 10 Technology Industry Council, ITI. We represent major 11 manufacturers in all these product categories 12 contemplated under the bill. 13 I will keep my comments brief here. 14 We are concerned, obviously, about the performance 15 standards here. One point that I will make that has 16 been alluded to prior is that manufacturers don't 17 have the distribution network in New York City. I 18 mean, you want to have a distribution network 19 nationally for the most part. The bulk of these 20 products are sold to consumers through traditional 21 retail distribution networks. It's especially 22 pronounced here in New York City where the retailers 23 are often the ones delivering and installing the 24 products. The challenge that means for us is when we 25 have the sole legal and financial obligation to 167 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 collect, we don't have any infrastructure in place 3 to do any local collection, so we basically have to 4 go out. And what Intro. 104 would do is direct 5 manufacturers to create a parallel municipal solid 6 waste infrastructure, just to collect electronics. 7 Obviously, that's a concern for us. 8 Several speakers previously have made the points 9 about the fact that this is private property, we 10 don't control the ability to bring those products 11 back into the system here. One point I would also 12 make is that the provisions are somewhat 13 inconvenient for consumers that basically links the 14 sale of a new product to the obligation to provide 15 collection, but it's the retailer in most cases who 16 are going to be making the sale, yet it is the 17 manufacturer who is obligated to do the recovery. 18 So, you have a consumer who goes in, 19 buys a new product at the store, or has one 20 delivered and installed, and they're ready to turn 21 that old product in, most likely, but it's, oh, 22 wait, it's not the retailer, go talk to the 23 manufacturer. So, you're now telling the consumer to 24 go through two separate transactions. 25 For comparison sake, in the European 168 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Union, they have that exact requirement, you have to 3 take back a product, similar product one-on-one but 4 it's the retailer who has to take that product out 5 of recognition of that convenience. 6 The product scope, ITI members 7 support a focused product scope. I think a couple of 8 the companies on the prior panel, or two panels ago, 9 made this point, focusing on computers, desktops, 10 laptops, computer monitors and televisions, getting 11 an infrastructure up and running and expanding it to 12 include other products. 13 Also, a focus on household products. 14 This is where the real challenge is. The 15 institutional customer, whether it's a large 16 business, whether it's the City government itself, 17 and other major institutions, sometimes they have 18 legal requirements to manage certain products, and 19 in other instances they do so on their own for 20 financial reasons, asset recovery management, data 21 collection, data destruction. I think the Dow 22 representative mentioned this is a cost of doing 23 business for the institutional customer, and they 24 have opportunities to do so, to contract through 25 some of these sales and lease contracts for bulk 169 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 purchases. This is really a household issue we're 3 trying to address, so we would support limiting the 4 scope of covered entities just to household because 5 that's what the real problem is. 6 All the testimony from some of your 7 fellow Council members about the concerns that their 8 constituents have is the fact the individual 9 consumer has a challenge with turning a device back 10 in. It's not Merrill Lynch, for instance, that has 11 to wonder about, well, geez, what do we do with our 12 obsolete computers here. 13 And then the last point I would make 14 is preserving the competitive marketplace. I think 15 it was the gentleman from LG who mentioned in his 16 testimony that there is a requirement in here that 17 you take back a product for every one you sell. Now, 18 that provides a disadvantage to established 19 manufacturers, especially on the television side of 20 the marketplace, because there are a lot of 21 newcomers out there, Visio, Westinghouse, there's 22 Digital Alevia Syntax who have very large 23 percentages of the market, but are relative 24 new-comers. They've only been around for maybe four 25 or five years, when the average lifespan of a 170 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 television is around 15 years, they basically have 3 another ten, 12 years before their products are 4 going to start coming back in. Meanwhile, 5 established manufacturers, many of whom you 6 represent, are going to have to start providing for 7 services now, and that's going to disrupt the 8 competitive playing field, and that's a concern for 9 us. 10 The ITI policy position calls for a 11 visible fee on televisions to address the legacy 12 issue. I understand from prior conversations with 13 City Council and staff that is not the preferred 14 approach of the City Council, but we'd like to talk 15 about other equitable ways to finance legacy 16 televisions without having a disruption in the 17 marketplace. 18 Thank you very much. 19 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Mr. 20 Goss. 21 Mr. Brugge. 22 MR. BRUGGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 23 and members of the City Council, for giving us the 24 opportunity to testify. This is certainly not the 25 first time we've been up here. We've met with your 171 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 staff and we share the comments that have been made 3 earlier about how your staff has been very receptive 4 to comments and our input on this bill. 5 Our organization, the Consumer 6 Electronics Association, is made up of over 2,000 7 member companies, retailers and manufacturers of CE 8 equipment and IT equipment, and this is a very 9 important issue for our members. They believe these 10 products should be recycled, there is no question 11 about that. The manner in which it is done is up for 12 debate. 13 I want to share just a couple of 14 comments. I've provided written testimony, so in the 15 interest of time. 16 First of all, our position is that 17 this issue is important enough that it should be a 18 shared responsibility among all stakeholders, not 19 placed solely on manufacturers. It should be a 20 responsibility of consumers to get their products 21 into the recycling infrastructure, retailers to 22 provide information and to also help with that 23 collection system, manufacturers, local governments, 24 State governments and the federal government. And 25 our approach and our position is that this should be 172 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 a national, that there should be a national 3 infrastructure. And we share your frustration with 4 the slowness of Washington. We're working with the 5 House and Senate staffers. We're told that there 6 will be draft principles out maybe later this week, 7 but we're, of course, in a presidential election 8 year, so things do move slowly and we certainly 9 applaud you for moving the debate and I think what 10 states are doing has prompted more attention 11 certainly in Washington. So, for that I thank you. 12 I'm going to hit on a couple of 13 points that have been made on others. We feel that 14 the scope is too broad. We feel that the scope 15 should be narrowed to video display devices, and we 16 also are opposed to the performance standards that 17 are in the bill right now and I'll address the 18 Minnesota position that we took, but I just want to 19 say that there is no correlation between the sale of 20 a product and the discard of an old product. We have 21 a market research department at CEA that does a lot 22 of studies and surveys and it's simply not the case. 23 Somebody who goes in and buys a product will discard 24 another product. We're requiring manufacturers to 25 take back any product based on the sales of products 173 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 is simply not a good approach we believe. And on the 3 Minnesota point we did take the position it was a 4 letter to the Governor asking for the Governor to 5 veto the Minnesota legislation, so I think in sports 6 terms people would call that the Hail Mary. And we 7 did take the position that .33 would have allowed 8 manufacturers to come close to their obligation, but 9 Minnesota allows the numerator to be products that 10 weren't within the scope of products that were to be 11 collected. So, they could take printers, faxes, a 12 number of different, and I think the gentleman from 13 LG mentioned this, so the ability to meet that 14 standard was a bit easier in Minnesota. Minnesota 15 also required retailers to report sales back to 16 manufacturers. 17 Intro 104 does not have that same 18 requirement. It's very difficult, almost impossible, 19 for manufacturers to know which products are sold in 20 the City of New York. 21 And the final point I would make 22 relates to my experience -- well, before I make that 23 point I just wanted to provide some data. There had 24 been some suggestions that performance standards, if 25 the system doesn't have a performance standard it 174 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 won't work. California doesn't have a performance 3 standard and they're recycling 3.4 pounds per 4 capita. Some other states, Maine, 3.1 per capita. 5 The most successful program in the world is 6 Switzerland, and they recycled 14.7 pounds per 7 capita, and in Switzerland they allow an advance 8 recycling fee. 9 Mr. Goss mentioned a fee being the 10 preferred approach for televisions. We share that 11 concern, that there needs to be some vehicle to 12 finance the system, and it does seem that other 13 systems have worked without these performance 14 standards. And I just want to say, I'm reminded of 15 my tenure at the USEPA and the Clinton 16 Administration, when we used to deal with very 17 difficult issues like this, we always looked to find 18 a solution that had broad opposition, equally spread 19 among all stakeholders. 20 When we heard that anger from all 21 stakeholders we felt we arrived at the right 22 solution, and it seems we haven't quite gotten to 23 that point here, and I urge the Council to look to 24 find that solution that angers everybody just a 25 little bit, and we look forward to working with you 175 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 on this key legislation. 3 Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you very 5 much. 6 MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chair, members of the 7 Committee, my name is Justin Wright. I'm the 8 Executive Director of the AEA New York Council, we 9 represent about 2,500 member companies across the 10 United States. 11 We have offices here in Albany New 12 York. 13 On behalf of the membership, I'd like 14 to also echo what you've heard from other folks in 15 industry regarding your office's ability and 16 capacities to work with industry. It's been very 17 refreshing to work with a group of folks who really 18 seemed attuned to listening to some of our concerns, 19 and we hope that going forward we're going to be 20 able to continue to keep that level of -- to keep 21 that door open between ourselves. 22 That said, AEA remains deeply 23 concerned with proposed New York City electronic 24 waste recycling, Intro. 104. We strongly urge the 25 Committee to set aside the local proposal, and 176 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 instead focus on leading the effort for a statewide 3 solution. We believe that acting at the local level 4 can hinder efforts to develop an effective 5 electronic waste system in New York. We think that 6 the eventual patchwork of regulations created by 7 communities large and small, enacting their own 8 electronic waste recycling statutes would be 9 unworkable in compliance with in each of the 10 communities with those standards would be nearly 11 impossible. 12 In addition, increased costs will be 13 incurred by our consumers, as a direct result of 14 extensive patchwork of regulations. 15 It is essential that the issue of 16 electronic waste be addressed and that practical 17 policy solutions are enacted. 18 AEA contends that the local level is 19 not the proper, most effective level, in which to 20 regulate. The growing volume of electronic waste is 21 not unique to New York City. It impacts every 22 community in our state from the larger city to the 23 smallest borough town, and it's time for us to try 24 to solve this problem on a statewide basis. 25 Because the Committee understands 177 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 this, you have a unique opportunity to lead the 3 State of New York towards a solution that will work 4 for all the citizens and its businesses. 5 On behalf of the high tech industry 6 in New York, I urge you to table this local proposal 7 and focus on promoting a statewide solution to this 8 important issue. 9 AEA and its member companies are 10 fully committed to assisting you and in creating an 11 effective and environmentally sensitive solution, 12 and we look forward to working with you, as we have 13 with legislators in Albany over the last couple of 14 years, and I think there is some change and 15 political dynamic there and I would hope that we 16 could work together to try to find a solution for 17 all of the residents of the City of New York that 18 will benefit all of the businesses and create the 19 level of market that we're going to need to have a 20 successful program. 21 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Mr. 22 Wright, and thank you to you all. I just want to say 23 that I started out by saying that it would be in the 24 best of all perfect worlds, that the State and 25 actually the federal government dealt with this 178 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 issue. I think the problem there is that, you know, 3 every year the City of New York has to handle three 4 and a half million tons of municipal solid waste, so 5 we feel the problem on a local level. So, yes, this 6 type of broad regulation would be better on a higher 7 level of government, but they have no imperative 8 there. We've been looking at this really for three 9 years with this Committee, I think it's now four, 10 there's four years this issue and this Committee, 11 and when we started people said we'll wait for the 12 State or the federal government, and now it's four 13 years later, and I have joked about growing up in 14 the shadow of the largest landfill in the world, but 15 it was true. And so we could see every day these 16 things being dumped into the landfill. So, as we sit 17 here now, these computers are being thrown into the 18 landfill in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and 19 Manhattan's trash is being incinerated across the 20 Hudson River, so these things are being burned there 21 and the toxins are being sent in the air back to our 22 children. 23 So, we see it as more urgent than, 24 unfortunately, those colleagues at those higher 25 levels of government see it, and then we feel 179 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 compelled to act. We have to do a budget that is 3 over a billion dollars to pay for the waste, we have 4 to put up a waste management plan to deal with it 5 and so we see it and that's why we can't wait for 6 them anymore. Hopefully now you'll go back to them 7 and you'll say, you know what? Now you've done it, 8 you let New York take the lead here, now they're 9 wacky and Albany and Washington better do something. 10 Yes. 11 MR. GOSS: I was a legislative staffer 12 in Albany for nine years, so I understand your 13 reluctance to wait for State action, and now I'm in 14 DC, so I can connect with that as well. 15 I would also reiterate -- 16 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: It's not only 17 the government's but it's the issue. It's the most 18 local of issues. You know, it's safety and 19 sanitation are two of the most basic issues that 20 government deals with, and instead of being helped 21 from Albany and Washington, we're being more 22 hindered. 23 MR. GOSS: But I would also mention, 24 and echo one of the points that Mr. Brugge made 25 about having other major players involved, there are 180 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 a lot of other institutional players out there, and 3 we, as an industry went to Congress in 2005, I'm sad 4 to say it's been almost three years now, and the key 5 point of our testimony was that all the 6 institutional participants, manufacturers, 7 retailers, recyclers, government NGOs, needed to 8 combine on a system that was convenient to the 9 residential consumer. Under Intro. 104 it's the 10 manufacturers who are being told even though we 11 don't have the means of distribution, particularly 12 in New York City, to come up and fund the full 13 solution here, and the question about what's most 14 convenient, what makes sense economically, how do we 15 run a program while maintaining a cost-effective 16 program so we don't have to pass those costs along 17 to your very voters, how do we do that on our own, 18 when we don't have a means of distribution in the 19 City? That's one of our major concerns, and when you 20 couple that with performance standards, you can 21 understand some of the trepidation from our members 22 on the prior panels here about how do we hit these 23 performance measures when we're being told, you 24 know, we don't have a presence in New York City to 25 distribute our product, and yet we're being told 181 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 alone to come up with this parallel structure. And 3 on the same point, at the same time we have these 4 high performance standards, so it's one of those 5 we're getting hit coming and going, and there aren't 6 very many other players who are willing to step up. 7 I mean, they're allowed to participate voluntarily, 8 as long as we write a big enough check, we can get 9 them to participate, but then we have to pass those 10 costs along somewhere. 11 So, we'd like to see some broader 12 participation from institutional players in this 13 solution. They're certainly involved in distributing 14 the products. 15 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Yes, sir. 16 MR. BRUGGE: I just want to add one 17 point. The worse case scenario is obviously 50 18 different states and many, many different localities 19 that adopt totally different e-waste infrastructures 20 and laws. 21 So, we would encourage you to take a 22 look at what other states have done. Connecticut, 23 for example, it is not the preferred approach of our 24 members, but if there was a regional-type approach 25 that was adopted, it would be less of a worst case 182 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 scenario than New York adopting something different 3 from Connecticut, from New Jersey, et cetera, et 4 cetera. 5 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Okay, we hear 6 you. Thank you all very much for coming in. 7 MR. BRUGGE: Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: I believe we 9 have one more panel. Maite Quinn, from ISRI; 10 Christine Dutz-Romero, Lower East Side Ecology 11 Center; Bobbi Chase Wilding from Clean New York; 12 Bill Rappel from Computers for Youth; Kate Zidar 13 from the Habana Outpost. 14 And we believe that the following 15 folks are not here, Angel Feliciano; Rabbi Felicia 16 Sol; and Julien Terrell. And now we thank them for 17 coming and we will take the submissions under 18 advisement. And they all submitted written 19 testimony. 20 We'll start with the odd man out, I 21 guess. As you know, this is an important issue. We 22 try not to waste anyone's time, but we do appreciate 23 you waiting and providing us with important 24 testimony, and if it was longer than it should have 25 been, we apologize. Thank you. 183 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 MR. RAPPEL: Thank you, Chairman 3 McMahon. Thank you also just in general for giving 4 me the opportunity to testify in support of Intro. 5 104-A. My name is Bill Rappel and I am the Director 6 of the Affiliate Network and Legislative Affairs at 7 Computers for Youth. 8 A national non-profit, Computers for 9 Youth was established in 1999 in New York City. In 10 our short history we have distributed more than 11 11,000 computer-based home-learning centers to 12 families in more than 20 school communities. 13 Thanks in large part to the Council's 14 continued support. Computers for youth will be 15 serving 2,400 low-income families in New York City 16 this year. 17 CFY's mission is to improve the 18 learning environment at home and increase parental 19 involvement in learning. To help us achieve this 20 mission, we accept computer donations from New York 21 City-based corporations, such as Goldman Sachs and 22 Time Warner. These donated computers are then 23 transformed into computer-based home learning 24 centers, which are designed by software experts and 25 tested by students and educational executives from 184 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 around the country. 3 By the end of this school year, CFY 4 will have increased the number of New York City 5 families we serve by 20 percent which means we will 6 have increased our demand for donated computers by 7 more than 20 percent. 8 The more families we serve, the more 9 computers we need, and CFY's constituents are just a 10 drop in the bucket of demand for recycled computers. 11 There are many other microsoft 12 authorized refurbishers, non-profits and 13 community-based organizations with constituents 14 whose technology needs are not being met. This 15 legislation would go a long way to helping all of us 16 meet the tremendous demand that exists for this 17 equipment. 18 The bill's language regarding reuse 19 is essential. Corporations and manufacturers must be 20 given incentives to support organizations like CFY. 21 We cannot compete against the for profit recyclers 22 for equipment. They can pay corporations for the 23 equipment, and then sell the same technology 24 overseas at a huge profit. 25 The same technology often ends up 185 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 polluting the environment of developing countries 3 that often lack the necessary resources to properly 4 dispose of the toxic components. 5 As I mentioned earlier, computers for 6 youth has distributed more than 11,000 computers 7 nationwide. At an average of 35 pounds per computer, 8 CFY has diverted 385,000 pounds of e-waste from 9 American landfills. One recent student who received 10 his computer in 2001 came back to us to let us know 11 that he was bringing it to college with him. 12 That's just one example of many who 13 are benefitting from the reuse of technology. 14 Intro. 104 is a great first step in 15 helping to rid US landfills of toxic equipment and 16 also to assist organizations like CFY to help meet 17 the needs of thousands of families who desperately 18 need usable technology in their home. 19 Again, thank you for the opportunity 20 to represent Computers for Youth. We applaud you for 21 taking the lead on this important initiative. 22 MS. ZIDAR: Hello, I'm Kate Zidar, and 23 I'm testifying for Habana Outpost. I'm Assistant 24 Building Consultant for Habana. They are a green 25 restaurant, an eco eatery is what we call ourselves. 186 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 And we're located in Fort Greene, Brooklyn. We're 3 not just a restaurant, we also do a number of 4 community programs and environmental programs. We 5 have a green building, and we have a non-profit 6 Habana Works that offers a green design project to 7 local students. And thank you very much for leading 8 this conversation. It's been very interesting for I 9 think everybody here who has stayed so long. It's 10 been worth it for me. And I just wanted to, from a 11 small business, small green business in particular 12 perspective, offer our support for this 13 introduction. 14 We'd like to endorse it as it stands, 15 and also that it extends to all consumers. I think 16 what when you start thinking about electronic waste 17 and toxic waste, we realize that there needs to be 18 some special consideration for its handling, and 19 it's a burden on residents right now on local 20 businesses to dispose of it. If they're intention is 21 to handle it in an environmentally responsible way. 22 And, so, as a business, Habana is interested in 23 doing so, but also as a community resource we're 24 interested in educating our patrons and our 25 neighbors about what, you know, what to do with 187 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 their stuff. We do that with composting, we do that 3 with a number of different -- we will hear in a 4 moment I believe about electronic waste recycling 5 events that are going on on a volunteer basis in the 6 City and we've hosted one with the partner 7 organization, the Lower East Side Ecology Center. 8 Councilwoman Letitia James came out and it was a 9 really wonderful day in our neighborhood. So, we 10 endorse it as it stands. 11 And also as a resident, I'm a 12 Brooklyn resident, and it's disappointing for me to 13 hear my Sanitation Department arguing singularly 14 from the perspective of the manufacturer on this, 15 because in addition to it being, you know, a problem 16 for me as an employee and as a resident to dispose 17 of waste in an environmentally conscious way, it's 18 also an issue of waste transportation. Once you kind 19 of cross the line of thinking about this stuff as 20 toxic waste, then you realize that we're treating it 21 as we would any other mixed waste and concentrating 22 it into certain neighborhoods for its transfer. And, 23 you know, it's not just about where it ends up, you 24 know, at the end of the day, it's also where it's 25 gone along the way. 188 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 So, thank you very much for the 3 opportunity to speak. 4 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: You remind me 5 also of an important aspect, that it's dangerous for 6 the Sanitation workers to be picking it up and 7 throwing it into a truck with those screens popping, 8 exploding and dust flying and that's something I 9 wanted to mention earlier, but it's another 10 important aspect of it. 11 MS. ZIDAR: And if I may add, 12 returning this responsibility to the manufacturer, 13 it was mentioned earlier a few times that really, 14 and as a sustainability consultant it's kind of my 15 job to highlight this, that it's really, the larger 16 goal here is designed to design out toxic waste from 17 products. And a process like this would do just 18 that. It's not just about recycling, it's about the 19 reduction. 20 MS. CHASE WILDING: Hi. Thank you for 21 the opportunity to testify. My name is Bobbi Chase 22 Wilding. I'm with Clean New York, which is a State 23 level organization that is dedicated to achieving 24 broad policy and market changes that are necessary 25 to protect our families' health and the environment 189 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 for toxic chemicals, and we have sort of a subset 3 priority of empowering women to be involved in this 4 transformation. 5 Clean New York is also part of the 6 Just Green Partnership, which is a broad diverse 7 growing collaboration of over 30 organizations which 8 advocates for environmental health and justice for 9 all New Yorkers. 10 Other members of the partnership 11 include WeAct for Environmental Justice and NRDC, 12 who both submitted testimony today. A full listing 13 of our partners is submitted in my written 14 testimony. 15 First of all, I would like to applaud 16 the Council for advancing e-waste policy that 17 requires manufacturers to be responsible for the 18 lifecycle of their products, and sets meaningful 19 standards to ensure that recycling is actually 20 happening. 21 The vast majority of what I would 22 like to say to you and what is included in my 23 written testimony has been said by many others and 24 very eloquently. 25 As a state level organization, we 190 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 have seen the kind of stagnation that has occurred 3 in Albany regarding this issue and really believe 4 that action here at the City level can spur renewed 5 vigor. Although we also have heard from both the 6 Senate and the Assembly that they're interested in 7 addressing this issue, we think that New York City's 8 role in actually signing, passing and signing this 9 legislation will play an important role, which is 10 what brought me down to the City today. 11 So, obviously we know what's at 12 stake. You guys yourselves have eloquently talked 13 about the problems of toxics in terms of the end of 14 life. I just wanted to point out that particularly 15 for things like brominated flame retardants, they 16 actually come out of the product while the person is 17 using it in their home. There have been studies that 18 find it in household dust. And my organization 19 participated in a seven-state biomonitoring project 20 in which we tested for some of these brominated 21 flame retardants and they are indeed found in 22 people's bodies. 23 So, when we talk about requiring the 24 manufacturers to be responsible, and to be looking 25 at how to make their products more recyclable, 191 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 they're going to be looking for ways to have 3 plastics that are much more inherently recyclable, 4 which having toxic additives decreases that. So, as 5 we see, this is an incentive for improving the 6 toxicity problem throughout the life cycle of the 7 product, not just at the production and disposal, it 8 also impacts the consumers. 9 So, we definitely support having 10 performance standards. We think that's really 11 important, and a lot of that debate today, you know, 12 centered around that. To us, the idea that you have 13 to take back products doesn't tell you anything 14 about how many you have to take back, and obviously 15 the Council understands this and we really 16 appreciate that, but we'd also like to -- I'd like 17 to observe that it's clear that the performance 18 standards that were set up are a result of 19 compromise. 20 So, if it were up to me to set them, 21 I would go much more closely to Minnesota's standard 22 or beyond. And, so, I appreciate that you have made 23 those compromises, but, you know, as a toxics 24 organization, we'd like to see all these toxic 25 products off the market, and out of the landfill and 192 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 waste stream. 3 And the last thing I'd like to say is 4 that I really think that for all the criticisms that 5 the industry representatives have offered, I really 6 believe in American innovation and I've seen, you 7 see time and time again where when we ask companies 8 to meet certain standards, they rise to the 9 occasion, and I certainly believe that if Dell and 10 Apple can convince me to buy their product, they can 11 also convince me to send my computer back and 12 recycle it. So, I think that's a really important 13 thing to consider. 14 So, I will leave the rest of my 15 remarks to my written testimony. Thanks again for 16 the opportunity. 17 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you very 18 much. 19 Christina. 20 MS. DUTZ-ROMERO: Good afternoon. 21 Okay, I turned it off. Sorry about that. And I am 22 pleased to have the opportunity to testify in front 23 of the Council, even though our audience has shrunk 24 somewhat, the dedicated few. And we heard a lot of 25 discussion today, and of course the Lower East Side 193 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 Ecology Center is very much in favor of the 3 legislation as it stands now. We think the extended 4 producer responsibility approach is the right 5 approach. Lots of states have adopted this now, and 6 just to interject, for example, Intel, who is a 7 producer of processors, came out last year with its 8 first lead-free processor, and I think that is 9 really a result of legislation that's on the books 10 in Europe and also here on the books in North 11 America really to what's this extended producer 12 responsibility, which, of course, we know creates 13 these incentives to create less toxic products. 14 And I want to talk a little bit about 15 the really performance targets that are in the bill. 16 We applaud them. I think they are very realistic, 17 and I just want to testify from the perspective of a 18 community-based organization that's been really in 19 the forefront of offering programs in this City to 20 provide recycling services to New York City 21 residents. And we have very limited resources but we 22 went out into the communities to really offer 23 recycling programs and what we just really find is 24 people ready to come and bring the materials. 25 So, I think if a non-for-profit like 194 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 us can create a program that can reach thousands of 3 New Yorkers in a year with our limited resources, 4 the manufacturers certainly have the resources to 5 bring this message home to New Yorkers and create 6 these programs, and I think all the hardship that 7 they are crying is really unfounded, because I think 8 the climate is right right now for to create 9 programs like this and I hope that we will pass 10 Intro. 104. 11 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you. But 12 you're not helping me, because you're supposed to 13 say that you don't like the bill. Because what Mr. 14 Brugge said, if you're unhappy, and the manufacturer 15 is unhappy, then we know we have the right bill. 16 MS. QUINN: Hi. My name is Maite 17 Quinn. I'm representing ISRI, the Institute of 18 Scrapp Recycling, National organization. We 19 represent the largest number of recyclers throughout 20 the world, and more than 20 percent of ISRI's 21 membership is involved in electronic scrap 22 processing, and industrial consumption of scrap 23 material generated by electronic recyclers. 24 ISRI agrees with the overall 25 direction of the legislation. We have submitted some 195 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 suggestion, changes, in writing to you. 3 ISRI applauds the Council's efforts 4 to have manufacturers internalized, the costs to 5 collect, handle and recycle their products for two 6 primary reasons. 7 First we recognize that producer 8 responsibility provides a greater incentive to 9 encourage manufacturers to design for recycling, a 10 concept that ISRI has advocated since the 1980s. 11 Second, we believe that 12 internalization will drive competition and better 13 reflect true market values. This should lower cost 14 and ultimately be cheaper for the consumer and 15 taxpayer. 16 ISRI suggests that manufacturers 17 should only be asked to cover the cost of electronic 18 equipment that has a negative cost to recycle. In 19 today's commodity marketplace, most recyclables such 20 as aluminum cans, copper pipe and newer computers 21 need no incentive to be profitable, because the cost 22 of recycling these recyclables are lower than their 23 commodity values. 24 However, in today's market, the cost 25 of recycling some electronic equipment, such as 196 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 older computers and TVs containing CRTs is greater 3 than the value of the commodities extracted from 4 them. 5 Traditional scrap commodity markets 6 are governed by supply and demand, whereby 7 artificial interference in the marketplace can cause 8 significant disruptions to the long-term economic 9 viability of markets. However, ISRI acknowledges 10 that in some very limited circumstances, the ability 11 to wait for market forces to drive the recycling of 12 certain materials, such as electronics, is limited 13 and hence financial drivers may be necessary to 14 stimulate the recycling of these materials at first. 15 We appreciate the opportunity to 16 submit these comments and ISRI stands ready to work 17 with all the stakeholders in the process. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON McMAHON: Thank you, Ms. 20 Quinn. And you have the final word. I want to thank 21 everyone for coming today. I again applaud the 22 Counsel to the Committee, Carmen Cognetta, and our 23 Sergeant-At-Arms, who stayed with us, and all of you 24 have come and stayed and listened, and especially 25 representatives from the Mayor's Office who I know 197 1 SANITATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2 will go back and work with us to try to put together 3 a bill that makes everybody mad. 4 So, having said that, I hereby 5 adjourn this meeting of the New York City Council 6 Committee on Sanitation and Solid Waste Management. 7 Thank you, all. 8 (Hearing concluded at 4:55 p.m.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 198 1 2 CERTIFICATION 3 4 5 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 6 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 7 8 9 I, CINDY MILLELOT, a Certified 10 Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the 12 within proceeding. 13 I further certify that I am not 14 related to any of the parties to this action by 15 blood or marriage, and that I am in no way 16 interested in the outcome of this matter. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 18 set my hand this 14th day of January 2008. 19 20 21 22 23 --------------------- 24 CINDY MILLELOT, CSR. 25 199 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I, CINDY MILLELOT, a Certified Shorthand 10 Reporter and a Notary Public in and for the State of 11 New York, do hereby certify the aforesaid to be a 12 true and accurate copy of the transcription of the 13 audio tapes of this hearing. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ----------------------- CINDY MILLELOT, CSR. 25