Electronic Waste Compliance and Enforcement: Emerging Trends - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Electronic Waste Compliance and Enforcement: Emerging Trends Managing Hazardous E-Waste to Meet Federal and State Law Requirements WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013 1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific Today’s faculty features: Peggy Otum, Partner, Arnold & Porter , Washington, D.C. Tricia Foley, Partner, Day Pitney , New York The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10 .

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-755-4350 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of • attendees at your location Click the SEND button beside the box •

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: • Click on the + sign next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left - hand column on your screen. • Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. • Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. • Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

Electronic Waste Compliance and Enforcement: Emerging Trends Tricia Foley, Esq. Peggy Otum, Esq. Wednesday, June 12, 2013 Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5

Agenda  Current Status of State and Local E-Waste Laws  Enforcement Cases  Litigation  International Trends  What to Expect Next – Bills in Congress – Greater EPA and State Enforcement  Best Practices 6

Current Status of State and Local e-Waste Laws  25 States Passed e-Waste Recycling Legislation  23 States Passed Producer Responsibility Laws  California Passed a Consumer Fee Based Law  Utah Passed a Manufacturer Education Law  18 States Have Some Type of Disposal Ban Law – Certain types of e-waste are banned from disposal into landfills and/or incinerators  Some state e-waste laws specifically include export prohibitions 7

Current Status of State and Local e-Waste Laws  Producer Responsibility Laws – Producers and/or manufacturers pay for collection, transportation, and recycling of e-waste – Municipalities may pay for some of e-waste recycling related costs – In some states (e.g., South Carolina, Virginia), producers are required to have a takeback program 8

Current Status of State and Local e-Waste Laws  Consumer Fee Based Laws (California only) – Consumers pay a fee at time of purchase – Consumer fee is paid to state, which is then reimbursed to recyclers and collectors – In 2011, $77 million in payments and 197 million pounds of e-waste were claimed 9

Current Status of State and Local e-Waste Laws  Manufacturer Education Law (Utah only) – Manufacturers are required to establish and implement public education programs to inform consumers of available recycling services for electronic devices – Program must include outreach materials and other methods developed by manufacturers to inform consumers about eligible programs for collection and recycling of e-waste 10

Current Status of State and Local e-Waste Laws  Export Restrictions – Some states specifically address export to other states and/or countries – General laws require that e-waste shall not be exported for disposal in a manner that poses a significant risk to the public health or to the environment (Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) – More sophisticated laws require export notices to the state, demonstration of compliance with applicable law in receiving country (California, Illinois) 11

Enforcement Cases  Target Corporation  Executive Recycling, Inc.  Discount Computers, Inc.  Electronics Recycling Canada  Pirkle, Inc.  Compupoint USA, Inc. 12

Enforcement Cases - Target Corporation  2009 lawsuit brought by 19 California district attorneys, the state attorney general, and city attorneys in San Diego and Los Angeles  Since 2001, Target received more than 300 Notices of Violation for breaking California’s hazardous waste laws  In 2006, an investigation was launched – Target was found to have improperly disposed of thousands of pounds of hazardous wastes 13

Enforcement Cases - Target Corporation  Complaint allegations: – More than 240 Target stores in California were unlawfully disposing of toxic wastes, including electronic devices – Target unlawfully disposed of hazardous waste to avoid the costs of proper disposal – E-waste was placed in a compactor, which was then taken by a hauler not authorized to transport such materials to a destination not authorized to accept it  Settled for $22.5 million  Target also required to hire outside firm to audit its waste-handling practices 14

Enforcement Cases – Executive Recycling, Inc.  First ever guilty verdict (December 2012)  Company headquartered in Colorado  Charges filed against company and its executives – Multiple counts of wire and mail fraud – Failure to file a Notice of Intent to Export with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – Smuggling of goods from the United States – Destruction of records 15

Enforcement Cases – Executive Recycling, Inc.  Indictment allegations: – Executive Recycling, Inc. exported over 300 shipments of e-waste overseas, including more than 100,000 cathode ray tubes (CRTs), which are known to contain lead  Company and its executives found guilty for illegally exporting e-waste overseas  Sentencing was set for April 2013  Motion for new trial denied in May 2013 16

Enforcement Cases – Discount Computers, Inc.  Headquartered in Michigan with warehouses in Missouri and New Jersey  Investigated by the U.S. EPA’s Criminal Division and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security- Homeland Security Investigations, Detroit  Allegations: – Owner and company created counterfeit labels to conceal age of electronic devices more than 5 years after date of manufacture – Owner and company exported more than 300 shipments, constituting more than 100,000 CRTs and valued at $2.1 million, to Egypt, where it is illegal to import devices more than 5 years past date of manufacture 17

Enforcement Cases – Discount Computers, Inc.  Owner pleaded guilty for himself and on behalf of company – Trafficking in counterfeit goods and services – Violations of RCRA by failing to obtain a permit to store or dispose of hazardous substances  Sentenced in March 2013 – Owner sentenced to 30 months in jail and a $10,000 fine for restitution – Company fined $2 million 18

Enforcement Cases – Electronics Recycling Canada  Based in Surrey, British Columbia, with branch offices in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon  In March 2013, Canada’s Environmental Protection Agency charged company and its president – 24 counts of illegally exporting recycled batteries and CRTs to China 19

Enforcement Cases – Pirkle, Inc.  Scrap metal recycling facility in Georgia  Entered Consent Agreement with U.S. EPA in September 2012  Pirkle allegedly violated RCRA and failed to properly identify solid wastes generated at the facility, including e-waste  Pirkle agreed to pay penalty of $49,410 20

Enforcement Cases – Compupoint USA, Inc.  E-waste recycling facility located in Norcross, Georgia  U.S. EPA’s allegations – Failure to make a hazardous waste determination on solid waste, including e-waste – Failure to properly train employees on proper waste handling and emergency procedures – Failure to notify U.S. EPA of its intent to export used CRTs internationally  Compupoint USA agreed to pay a civil penalty of $36,000 21

Litigation  Intercon Solution, Inc. v. Basel Action Network and James Puckett , Case No. 12CH23755, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 22

Litigation - Intercon Solution, Inc. v. Basel Action Network and James Puckett  In June 2012, Intercon filed a lawsuit against Basel Action Network (BAN) for defamation and placing the company in a false light  Intercon sought an injunction against BAN for making any further allegedly false statements  Intercon had hired BAN to audit its business in order to obtain e-Steward certification  Complaint alleges that BAN conducted an unlawful surveillance of Intercon’s premises and falsely accused it of owning and illegally shipping hazardous e-waste to Hong Kong and other parts of China  In August 2012, BAN filed a counterclaim against Intercon requesting declaratory relief and a jury trial 23