1. PSI Forum/NW NAHMMA Conference Tuesday, June 2, 2009 Product Stewardship Framework Legislation Sego Jackson Snohomish County Solid Waste Division, Principal Planner Northwest Product Stewardship Council, Policy Committee Chair Sego.Jackson@snoco.org 425.388.6490

2. 2 Wasteful

3. 3 Toxic

4. 4 Dangerous

5. 5 Frustrating …when addressed on a product by product basis!

6. 6 Don’t Get Frustrated! Get Framework! Think Framework!

7. 7 A Pattern for EPR Policy Producers Have Primary Responsibility –Independent or Collective Programs Use Stewardship Organization –Responsible for financing and organizing collection through processing (remove costs from governments) –Develop and submit plans and annual reports Shared Responsibility – others have roles No legislated fees – costs are internalized

8. 8 The Goal: Framework Approach  Government sets level field, performance standards, prioritizes products  Government ensures transparency, accountability  Why not make this approach standardized for multiple products?  What would framework legislation, such as British Columbia has, look like for a state?

9. A Better Way: Product Stewardship

12. 1. Producer Responsibility 1.All producers selling a covered product into the State are responsible for designing managing, and financing a stewardship program that addresses the lifecycle impacts of their products including end-of-life management. 2.Producers have flexibility to meet these responsibilities by offering their own plan or participating in a plan with others. 3.In addressing end-of-life management, all stewardship programs must finance the collection, transportation, and responsible reuse, recycling or disposition of covered products. Stewardship programs must:  Cover the costs of new, historic and orphan covered products.  Provide convenient collection for consumers throughout the State. 4.Costs for product waste management are shifted from taxpayers and ratepayers to producers and users. 5.Programs are operated by producers with minimum government involvement.

13. 13 How to Use Framework Approach? A few options: Pass framework legislation that empowers state agency to designate additional products over time. Pass framework legislation that allows legislature to easily add additional products over time. Use “template” model legislation on a product- by-product basis - future harmonization

15. 15 CA waste agency adopts Framework EPR policy 1/08 Framework EPR Trends National Association of Counties - Framework EPR resolution, 7/08 Minnesota Framework Study bill 2008 Extensive stakeholder processes in Oregon, California, Minnesota Coordination calls between states working on Framework EPA Region 9 and 10 Climate Work Groups ASTWMO Product Stewardship Committee, Etc. Washington State Climate Action Team Recommendation, 11/08

16. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/lrw-ps-1sy09.pdf

17. Study Bill in 2008 Three U.S. states introduce full Framework EPR bills in 2009 Study Bill modeled from MN Study Bill in 2009 Framework included in Washington Omnibus “for discussion” climate legislation in 2009 Framework EPR Legislation Rhode Island Washington Oregon, California, Minnesota Minnesota

18. 18 Washington Washington: 2007 - Governor’s Climate Advisory Team: –recommends framework policy development 2008 - Governor’s Climate Action Team –Beyond Waste Implementation Work Group develops sample framework from NWPSC draft applies to initial set of products uses as template for lighting legislation sample 2009 - included in omnibus climate change “for discussion” legislation (HB 1718) and lighting legislation also introduced (as well as pharmaceuticals) 2010 – Focus on product specific legislation likely

19. California 2009 Bills of Interest Product-specific Carry-out Bags (AB68, AB87, AB 1141, SB531) Lamps containing mercury (AB 1173) Paint (AB1343) Pharma (SB26)Framework EPR Framework (AB 283) www.ciwmb.ca.gov/EPR

20. AB 283 (Chesbro) CA Product Stewardship Act of 2009 CIWMB Adopt regulations by July 1, 2011 Establish processes for product selection, performance goals, plan development, & penalties Monitor progress & enforce Report to legislature Producers Submit a product stewardship plan to achieve goals Fund implementation of plan Pay those performing services to implement plan Submit annual reports to board

21. Oregon Product Stewardship Framework Set up a framework and process to: Select products Require producers to be responsible for products at end- of-life Increase convenient and free collection and recycling Provide incentives to design products for the environment Set performance goals

22. Context for OR Legislation Grew out of 2007 E-waste Legislation Key Legislator Interest – saw need if future products added Strong support form State Environmental Quality Commission and Dept. of Environmental Quality Senior Management Harmonization with neighboring states – California and Washington

23. Stakeholder Process Key Issues Which products and product selection criteria Delegation of product selection Definition of Producer

24. Legislative Challenges Framework concept hard to grasp Industry push-back all sectors Democratic governor and legislature – conservative democrats no votes Economy limited consideration of bills with fiscal impact Economic issues dominated session – limited time for other issues

25. Producer Voiced Concerns Concerned government will dictate product design Expensive for producers Grows government bureaucracy One size fits all “Job Killer” Product selection issues – which, why, how and by whom?

26. Benefits to Producers Harmonization between states to streamline compliance Industry in the driver’s seat – not prescriptive, much flexibility Predictability of what is expected - develop plans, perform Level playing field - producers held to same standards as other producers Market/economic design drivers – not government dictating design Minimal government involvement, bureaucracy and costs

27. 27 Additional Resources California Legislation, http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0251-0300/ab_283_bill_20090212_introduced.html Minnesota Legislation, https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2407.0.html&session=ls86 https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2407.0.html&session=ls86 Oregon Legislation, http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/productstewardship.htmhttp://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/productstewardship.htm Rhode Island Legislation, http://www.rilin.state.ri.us//BillText09/SenateText09/S0854.pdfhttp://www.rilin.state.ri.us//BillText09/SenateText09/S0854.pdf Washington Sample Framework Policy and Omnibus Climate Change Legislation, http://www.productpolicy.org/content/climate-change-epr and http://www.productpolicy.org/content/climate-change-epr http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1718&year=2009http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1718&year=2009 (sect. 318-361) California Integrated Waste Man. Board EPR, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/EPR/http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/EPR/ California Product Stewardship Council, http://www.calpsc.org/http://www.calpsc.org/ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/stewardship/index.cfmhttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/stewardship/index.cfm Northwest Product Stewardship Council, www.productstewardship.netwww.productstewardship.net Product Policy Institute, www.productpolicy.orgwww.productpolicy.org Product Stewardship Institute, www.productstewardship.uswww.productstewardship.us