1. The Three Paradigms of Household Hazardous Waste Management Jim Quinn NAHMMA NW Chapter Conference June 2015

2. The Three Paradigms Local government responsibility State government responsibility Producer responsibility #4 Source reduction upstream

3. from: “Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead” US EPA 2009

5. The Three Paradigms Local government responsibility State government responsibility Producer responsibility #4 Source reduction upstream #5 Do nothing

6. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR

7. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR Also known as:Advanced disposal fee, advanced recycling fee (ARF) Extended producer responsibility, product stewardship

8. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR Who is responsible? Local govt. agency, typically at the county level, e.g. solid waste or public works agencies Government agency, typically at the state level The industry that manufactures, distributes, and/or sells the product

9. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR Who pays? Usually local taxes or solid waste rates, spread across all taxpayers or ratepayers Added to the product at point of sale Industry, with costs passed on to the consumer. Either internalized or explicit “eco- fee”.

10. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR Legislated?Typically voluntary, but sometimes state requirements on local governments YesYes, but voluntary stewardship can also take place

11. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR ProsMany fine examples out there Appears to be a simple fundraising method Sustainable funding In theory: induce changes in toxicity and recyclability Fairness Can provide a truly convenient collection system

12. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR ConsSustainable funding is hard to come by Big new government program Funds can be raided by legislature Heavy legislative lift Potential for conflict between industry stewards & govt. oversight agency

13. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR ExamplesMost HHW programs California e-waste program OR &WA e-waste, PaintCare, Call2Recycle

14. California’s AB45 -Requires local government HHW programs to increase collection and diversion by 15% over baseline -“intent of the legislature” to establish curbside & door-to-door collection as the principle means of collecting - No reimbursement by the state, since local agency can levy service charges, fees, or assessments

15. Metro’s HHW EPR legislation Why is Metro tackling EPR for HHW? Legislative concept Next steps

16. Why EPR for HHW? PaintCare saves Metro about $1 million annually Consultant report: if other HHW programs are brought under EPR in Oregon, it could save Metro nearly $2 million more annually - Cascadia Consulting December 2012

17. Why EPR for HHW? Fairness- why should local governments bear the burden? Will help us fully realize the mission of our HHW program Three Canadian provincial programs have implemented EPR for HHW (BC, Ontario, Manitoba) It’s a logical next step

18. Legislative Concept Producers that sell covered products into the state must have a program What’s covered? How are things paid for? What services provided? What’s specifically required: – of stewards? – of government?

19. 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

20. Legislation Overview ElementDraft Legislative Concept CoverageAny consumer product that: is DOT hazardous exhibits a RCRA hazardous waste characteristic, or is FIFRA registered FinancingNo government approved fees, up to industry to work out financing Services Collection sites authorized by DEQ Maximize use of existing HHW infrastructure Performance requirements: convenience recycling\recovery rates and dates “Status quo plus” (what’s collected now with more service in underserved areas)

21. What’s next? Stakeholder process, including:  industry  OR local governments  waste services providers  national interested parties  NGOs