1. In Pursuit of EPR for All HHW Jim Quinn NAHMMA National Conference September 2015

2. Today’s Presentation History of HHW programs Three approaches to HHW management Recent state HHW legislation What’s next

3. HHW History 1976- RCRA “cradle to grave” hazardous waste management statute 1980- EPA’s implementing regulations exempt households 1981- First HHW collection event 1982- First HHW collection in the Portland area

4. HHW History (cont.) 1990s- Thousands of HHW collection programs operating around the country 1994-British Columbia shuts down provincial HHW collection, starts paint stewardship system 1994-Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corp. (RBRC) starts up 2000- Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) founded

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

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

7. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR

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

9. 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

10. 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”.

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Local govt. responsibility ADFEPR ExamplesMost HHW programs California e-waste program Most e-waste programs, PaintCare, Call2Recycle

15. 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

16. Oregon’s EPR for HHW Bill Why EPR for HHW? PaintCare saves Metro about $1 million annually Consultant report: if other HHW products 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? Three Canadian provincial programs have implemented EPR for HHW (BC, Ontario, Manitoba) Will help us fully realize the mission of our HHW program

18. We aren’t getting it all Metro’s HHW program offers a high level of service: two permanent facilities open year-round, plus a series of 35 events A recent waste composition study in our region showed 0.21% of MSW is hazardous waste (residential routes), so about 4 million pounds annually My estimate: even the best HHW programs are only getting 50-75% of what is generated

19. 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?

20. 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

21. 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)

22. What’s next? Stakeholder process for Oregon legislation:  industry  local governments  waste services providers  NGOs

23. What’s next? Other interested parties:  Metro & PSI are gathering information on anyone around the country interested in EPR for HHW

24. Jim Quinn Hazardous Waste Program Manager Metro 503-797-1662 jim.quinn@oregonmetro.gov