Presentation on theme: "Transitioning to Full Producer Responsibility for Household Hazardous Waste NAHMMA NW Chapter Conference 6/25/2014."— Presentation transcript:
Transitioning to Full Producer Responsibility for Household Hazardous Waste NAHMMA NW Chapter Conference 6/25/2014
Today’s agenda Introductions Background Why EPR for HHW? Canadian Programs Key elements What products to cover Financing Services – role of HHW infrastructure Performance standards Next steps
EPR - Extended Producer Responsibility [a] manufacturer's responsibility for its product extends to post-consumer management of that product… financial and management responsibility, with government oversight, [shifts] upstream to the manufacturer and away from the public sector Provid[es] incentives to producers to incorporate environmental considerations into the design of their products and packaging. – Product Stewardship Institute; California Product Stewardship Institute; Upstream (formerly Product Policy Institute)
Why EPR for HHW? From the HHW collection program point of view: Helps us fully achieve our mission Helps us financially
The HHW “Mission” Protect human and health and the environment by providing effective and environmentally sound management of HHW that is generated (in spite of our best efforts at source reduction) Many HHW programs are doing a valiant job of collecting the HHW generated in their region, but resources are limited, and we are not getting it all With a robust EPR program, we can finally get pretty darn near all of the HHW generated
Why EPR for HHW It should be as easy to get rid of a product as it is to buy it Make it easy for people to do the right thing Fairness: – “polluter pays” principle – Industry is in the best position to take responsibility
Benefits PaintCare has saved Metro ~ $1 million annually We believe another $2 million savings annually with wide-ranging EPR for HHW But - it’s important to make sure EPR benefits urban, rural, large & small HHW programs!
Canadian programs EPR programs for a variety of HHW products in these provinces: British Columbia Manitoba Ontario see handout
Key EPR Elements What’s covered? How are things paid for? What services provided and how arranged for? What’s required: – of stewards? – of government?
Key EPR Elements What’s covered? – How designated – lists, standards? Who’s responsible? – Single or multiple stewards? How are things paid for? – Eco fees, cost internalization? How are services arranged? – Collection, consolidation, facilities, events? What’s required: of stewards? of government? – Convenience; “rates and dates”; plan review
EPR Elements Other Key Elements Promotion/education Goals – rates & dates Reporting Enforcement DEQ role (oversight, fees to) Disposal bans Today’s focus Coverage Financing Services Performance
Today’s Product Coverage Focus The “other stuff” Flammables (e.g., solvents) Pesticides Corrosives Other toxics & hazardous materials Works in progress Paint (covered) Mercury lights Batteries – Primary & Rechargeables Sharps Pharmaceuticals
Conceptual Overview ElementDraft Legislative Concept CoverageSimilar products and criteria as BC, SK and Manitoba - Canada Stewardship organizationsAllow multiple FinancingNo government approved fees Services Collectors authorized by DEQ Coordination with other HHW materials collection Performance requirements: convenience recycling\recovery rates and dates Status quo plus (what’s collected now with more service in underserved areas)
Coverage – Q’s for discussion Working assumption – Use criteria similar to Canadian standards What can we learn from Canadian experience? Covered products – What makes a good list? – What likely to be biggest problems? Non-covered products – How much non-covered comes in? – How critical to keep communicating to public that we take all?
Financing – Q’s for discussion Working assumption: no government approved fees Why? – Too many products; too costly for government How to handle “free riders”? How can producers recover costs from supply chain without government approved fee? Other methods?
Services – Q’s for discussion Working assumptions: Stewards negotiate with existing permanent HHW facilities; collection events historically expensive What costs – direct, indirect (capital, O&M) should HHW programs take to the table? How do costs for non-covered and orphaned products figure into this discussion?
Performance requirements – Q’s for discussion Working assumption: At least status quo plus - what’s collected now plus more service in underserved areas How can we establish what more should be? Beyond more? How coordinate with other HHW efforts (e.g., paint)?
Next steps Further develop legislative concept If you would like to be involved in further discussion, please sign clipboard