Pending environmental legislation in California may impact the electronics industry

There are plenty of new environment-focused bills in California's legislature this session. Here is an outline of a few of them and some of our opinions on their potential impact on the electronics industry.

AB 48: Assembly Member Saldana. Hazardous waste: electronic devices.
This bill would, as of January 1, 2010, expand the scope of California's RoHS-like provisions in the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 to mirror those of the European Union (EU), and reference the U.K.'s implementation when there are inconsistencies between EU Member States. This provides Californians with the broadening conundrum of constitutional proportions: are we to be beholden to the laws of another land, over which we, as U.S. citizens, have no control? U.S. citizens have no direct say in the scope of a European or United Kingdom regulation.

Impact: While not particularly difficult for the electronics industry to implement (save companies that do not sell into the EU but do sell into California), this expands what we see as a potentially dangerous legal precedent. If California is going to hitch its wagon to the EU, let's do it in concept only, rather than tie it inexorably and without good reason to their wording and interpretation.

AB 1535: Assembly Member Huffman. Electronic waste: personal computers.
This bill proposes to expand the scope of the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003. It would provide that, on and after July 1, 2008, a covered electronic device also includes a personal computer. A retailer would be required to collect a fee of $6 from the consumer at the time of the retail sale of the personal computer, except as specified.

Impact: No direct impact on the electronics industry (this is a key argument against Advance Recovery Fee schemes like California's) but a possible impact on citizens. California stands to continue to lose money by collecting less money per unit than it costs the state to pay recyclers. California currently pays $0.48/pound; that's about 12 pounds for the $6 collected. What does your PC weigh? It's probably more than 12 pounds.

AB 546: Assembly Member Brownley. Electronic waste: computers.
Same as AB 1535, but focuses on "Tower Computers" and makes the fee $10. It would also require all city, county, or district-operated solid waste facilities to accept electronic waste, thereby mandating local programs.

Impact: Again, it won't cover the costs, even if tower PCs weighed less than 21 pounds. Adding products piece-meal like this is tedious. AB 48 has the right idea, but only affects substances, not recycling. California needs to develop a clear and coherent scope of electronic products just once, if it is going to mandate recycling, and provide for adequate fees that don't sap the treasury and populace.

SB 578: Senator Simitian. High production volume chemicals.
As of Jan 1, 2011, this bill would require a manufacturer of a chemical that is manufactured in, or imported into, the United States in an amount equal to, or greater than, 1,000,000 pound per year (high production volume chemical) to provide to the Department of Toxic Substances Control according to a specified schedule, the chemical's physiochemical, toxicological, and ecotoxicological information, identification of industry sectors that purchase more than 5% of these chemicals, and, of those industry sectors, identification of industry sectors whose products are likely to be exposed to people. A high production volume chemical would be prohibited from being manufactured, imported, or used in the state, if the manufacturer fails to provide the required information.

This can, perhaps, be considered "REACH Lite". Article manufacturers and their applications of purchased HPVs are required (if only implied) to provide information as part of this, so again information must flow in both directions across the supply chain. And, again like the California Electronic Waste Act (and AB 48), it references European Union law: "Environmental health information" means information that is required under Annex X of the Regulation (EC) 1097/2006 adopted by the European Commission on December 18, 2006, and information relating to whether the chemical causes or has the potential to cause endocrine disruption, immunotoxicity, respiratory toxicity, neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, or childhood cancers.

This reference is to the REACH Regulation itself, by the way. In any case, that they have compressed REACH to 671 words is quite impressive. I guess they'll work out the details later.

Impact: The potential for impact on the electronics industry is, as with REACH, primarily indirect (although certain segments may experience a direct impact, including inkjet printer cartridge manufacturers, semiconductor fabs, or EMS providers) and related to supply chain risk. What HPV chemicals are used in your products that come through California? Do you know? Go find out. On the other hand, this legislation seems to be missing an awful lot of information regarding implementation, costs, fees, enforcement, and other critical practical issues.

AB 1193: Assembly member Ruskin. Mercury-added thermostats: collection program.
As of January 1, 2007, this bill would require a manufacturer that sold mercury-added thermostats in this state before January 1, 2006, and that sells thermostats in this state on and after January 1, 2008, to establish and maintain a collection and recycling program for out-of-service mercury-added thermostats. The act would prohibit a manufacturer from selling a thermostat in this state on and after July 1, 2008, unless the manufacturer complies with the act and would prohibit a person, on and after July 1, 2008, from selling a thermostat in this state if the manufacturer of that thermostat is subject to, and is not in compliance with the act.

So now I would have a place to dispose of the old Honeywell mercury-switch thermostat I just replaced if Honeywell continues to sell them in California.

Impact: This is an end-of-pipe way to change behavior and just stop manufacturers from selling mercury-added thermostats in California. There are solid-state technologies that can replace mercury switches; let's use them.

AB 513: Assembly member Lieber. PBDE: prohibition.
As of January 1, 2011 this bill would complete what AB 302 (the octa- and penta-BDE ban that goes into effect January 1, 2008) started and ban DecaBDE from California.

Impact: The writing is on the wall; the industry has to find another flame retardant or rethink the design of circuits and products that have the potential to overheat. Design-out the real or perceived need for flame retardants.

AB 656: Assembly member Plescia. Hazardous waste: alkaline batteries.
This bill would require two state agencies to determine and report, by July 1, 2008, whether there are any environmental impacts caused by the random disposal of used alkaline batteries in a permitted solid waste landfill facility, the extent of those impacts caused by that disposal, and proposed solutions to mitigate those identified impacts. California stopped allowing batteries to be placed in the trash last year; and there are no battery recyclers in the state and no collection points yet, so we've all (in theory) been collecting used alkaline batteries in the meantime.

Impact:The fact that California banned alkaline batteries from landfills without doing the due diligence to determine whether they are hazardous waste in a landfill is somewhat problematic itself, but this should right that wrong. On the other hand, a REACH-like approach would force the battery manufacturers to prove that they are benign in a landfill at their cost. This way, the state bears the cost, courtesy of my taxes. What makes more sense? Which is the way of the future: Producer responsibility or State responsibility?

AB 1108: Assembly Member Ma. Children's products: phthalates and bisphenol-A.
The author of the San Francisco ordinance DCA reported on last year in Green SupplyLine has since been elected to the California Assembly. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2009, prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of certain toys and child care articles, as defined, if those products have been made with or contain bisphenol-A (BPA), or contain types of phthalates in concentrations exceeding 1/10 of 1%. Every single toy that contains electronics of any complexity at all can be considered to have "been made with" BPA. It is used to manufacture epoxy for printed-circuit-boards and the encapsulant for "plastic" integrated circuits, tantalum capacitors, and other components. These are all internal to the product, not accessible should the child inevitably put the toy in their mouth (one would hope).

Impact: Unless every parent in California wants the silence promised by electronics-free toys, this bill needs an exemption for embedded electronics. A proposal to amend the previously passed ordinance in San Francisco and remove the ban on BPA (pending more definitive results of its toxicity) is moving through the San Francisco Board of Supervisors' committees and will soon be voted on by the full Board, according to Dr. Steve Hentges of the American Chemistry Council. Should that pass, AB 1108 would likely be amended similarly. A number of other similar bills are in legislatures around the country, as well.

AB 558: Assembly Member Feuer. Toxic chemicals: use reduction.
This bill would enact the Toxic Use Reduction Act of 2007 (Massachusetts has had a Toxic Use Reduction Act since 1989, upon which this would be based), and would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to significantly reduce the use of toxic chemicals. It would require the legislature to enact legislation that would assess a fee on manufacturers based on the quantity of individual toxic chemicals used. The fees collected would be used to fund technical staff within the Department of Toxic Substances Control to assist manufacturers with toxic reduction, grants for academic research into non-toxic alternatives to toxic chemicals, and enforcement staff with the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Impact: So while it would have no immediate impact on industry, this appears to be a "writing is on the wall" bill. This is a way for government to tax industry for the use of toxic substances. Eliminate the use of toxic substances; eliminate the tax. So while it may have the effect of hastening the exodus of manufacturing from California, the similar act in Massachusetts has reportedly been successful in reducing toxic substance use, and costs.

Depending upon what segment of the industry you operate in there could be more bills here in California for you to be concerned with or get behind. And if you don't do business in California, then take note that what happens here often presages what other states, as well as the federal government, may do in the future. For more information on any of these bills, visit www.leginfo.ca/gov/bilinifo.html

Original text is here