EPR

by Hanz Atia, Associate, Policy & Programs

When dumped in the trash or flushed down the drain, pharmaceuticals can contaminate our environment – and, when left in medicine cabinets, drugs can cause accidental overdoses. But Oregon just passed an amendment to its 2019 EPR law, which expands the type of facilities at which covered drugs under drug takeback programs may be disposed. SB 411 will now go to Governor Tina Kotek for signature. 

In 2010, PSI led a national coalition to pass the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act and change related regulations that made it possible for retail pharmacies to host drug take-back programs for unwanted medicines, including controlled substances. That year, we developed model pharmaceuticals EPR legislation with our national coalition; by 2012, PSI Member Alameda County had used our model to establish the first pharmaceuticals EPR ordinance in the country, which was upheld by the courts despite industry appeals. Learn more on our pharmaceuticals product page. 

We testified in support of SB 411, which added federally regulated medical waste incineration facilities to Oregon’s drug disposal program. These facilities provide incineration service options in other state drug take-back programs, providing additional competition that can potentially lower drug disposal costs.  

Editor’s note: This legislation was signed into law on May 23, 2023.

by Suna Bayrakal, Director, Policy & Programs

Many household products – including cleaning fluids, varnish, paint removers, fuel additives, and gas cylinders – contain toxic and/or flammable ingredients. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets stringent requirements for hazardous waste generated by businesses, it does not regulate household products that contain the same hazardous materials. Known as Household Hazardous Waste (or “HHW”), these products should require special handling once consumers are finished using them. Many local governments run HHW collection events to help residents safely dispose of these products, but these events are infrequent and often underfunded; others build and operate permanent facilities that collect HHW year-round, but at a major and growing expense to taxpayers and government. In many communities, where there is a lack of collection facilities or events, or inconsistent HHW collection services due to the limited resources of local governments, significant quantities of these materials are disposed of in the trash or down the drain – it is estimated that 855 tons or more per year of HHW are being disposed of in landfills in Vermont. These unsafe disposal practices contaminate the environment and threaten the safety of drinking water; when stored at home, HHW puts children and pets at risk for poisoning and can cause fires or release dangerous pollutants during flooding. This is the problem that Vermont set out to solve with first-in-the-nation HHW Extended Producer Responsibility – known as “EPR” – legislation, which is now on Governor Phil Scott’s desk.  

H.67 creates a statewide HHW EPR program, which will be managed and sustainably funded by the manufacturers of these products. Local governments will have the opportunity to participate in the program and be reimbursed by manufacturers for their costs of collection; they will also save money as transportation and processing costs are assumed by manufacturers H.67 is consistent with current EPR best practices and contains key elements necessary for implementation of an effective HHW EPR law, including:  

• Performance goals to measure progress; 
• Annual reporting to provide transparency and monitor program implementation;  
• Education and outreach to raise public awareness about how to safely manage HHW and reduce leftover products, including targeted to Vermont’s diverse ethnic and environmental justice populations; and 
• Opportunities to improve the plan as the program is implemented and matures. 

HHW EPR programs have operated successfully in Canada since the 1990s and, in the past few years, expanded to new provinces based on that success. In Manitoba, collection volumes increased four-fold in the first five years of program implementation; in British Columbia, more than 131,000 gallons of HHW were collected in 2017. Over the past decade, PSI analyzed the operational feasibility of EPR for HHW in the U.S., as well as best practices and lessons learned from existing programs across Canada.  

“H.67 is the first law in the United States that brings producers of the most toxic and consequently difficult and costly to manage portion of the waste stream to the table to develop a plan that creates cleaner land and water for all Vermonters,” said Jen Holliday, Director of Public Policy and Communications for the Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD) and a PSI Board member, who has been working on this legislation since 2017. “In addition, producers will now be incentivized to develop less-toxic household products. We are hopeful Governor Scott will sign this bill.” 

PSI worked with Vermont’s state and local government officials, including those in the Vermont Product Stewardship Council, to develop and refine the legislation in Vermont, which builds on prior PSI work in Oregon led by Metro, a regional government in Greater Portland. Our research on Canadian programs contributed to the development of the Vermont bill. Learn more on our HHW product page.

PSI has also worked with Vermont stakeholders to develop the state’s additional EPR laws on paint, electronics, pharmaceuticals, mercury lamps, mercury thermostats, and batteries. As a result of these laws, Vermont has the highest per-capita collection and recycling rates in the US for many of these products and H.67 is expected to produce similar results. 

We look forward to the positive impact of H.67 in Vermont and beyond! 

by Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder

Although we haven’t seen a new packaging EPR law enacted yet, eight states introduced legislation in 2023 – and Maryland just became the fifth state to move on it. On May 10, Governor Wes Moore signed legislation to establish a government funded needs assessment to be developed by a consultant that will determine the need for new recycling collection and processing infrastructure, along with the costs. The law also requires the establishment of a producer responsibility organization to coordinate producers and a separate advisory council, established by the Maryland Department of Environment that is tasked with reporting its findings and recommendations to the Governor by December 1, 2024 for consideration in 2025. 

There have been four laws passed over the past two years – in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California – and Maryland’s new law sets the state up to join them in 2024. Previously this year, Maryland’s state legislature considered a packaging EPR bill, SB 0222, which had more elements of a solid EPR bill. It would have required producers to reimburse local governments up to 50% for collection, transportation, and processing of packaging materials – including plastic, paper, glass, and metals. Originally introduced in 2021 as HB36 and reintroduced in 2022, the goal of the legislation was to reduce material and product waste by 25% or more by 2035. This bill did not pass, but SB 222, the EPR packaging study bill, did. 

EPR is snowballing, partially in part due to a growing awareness of the circular economy, which has the potential to help turn around environmental crises like climate change and pollution: Today, the global manufacture and use of consumer products generate 20% of greenhouse gas emissions annually but the circular economy is projected to reduce 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, EPR is the “only proven and likely way to provide funding that is dedicated, ongoing, and sufficient” to develop a circular economy.

In keeping with circular economy principles, packaging EPR legislation, which will now be studied in Maryland, aims to reduce waste and increase reuse, recycling, and composting. In British Columbia, where packaging EPR has been in place since 2014, 90% of packaging is recycled. These programs are funded by producers and typically managed through a producer responsibility organization (PRO), with multi-stakeholder advisory council input and government oversight.  

In Maine, the first state to enact such a law, multinational companies like Amazon and Walmart, which ship packaged goods into the state, will soon be required to reimburse municipalities for the cost of collecting, reusing, and recycling boxes and containers (small businesses are exempt from the fee). We will keep tracking the evolution of packaging EPR in Maryland. 

by Suna Bayrakal, Director, Policy & Programs

After Governor Jay Inslee signed Washington State’s new legislation on May 11th, it became the 10th state – plus Washington D.C. – to enact a battery EPR law. This law shows the strong and steady trend towards state battery EPR laws that include a broad scope of both single and rechargeable batteries, with best practices that are standards in all effective EPR laws – such as performance goals and convenience standards. Each passage of an EPR for batteries law has increased the types that are included: Washington is the first state to include e-mobility devices and to study the opportunities and challenges of managing large-format batteries and batteries that are embedded in products, such as electronics.

Vermont enacted the nation’s first single-use household battery EPR law in 2014, which PSI helped pass: In its first year of implementation, that state increased collection by more than 180 percent. More recently, PSI provided technical support to incorporate best practices from our model battery EPR legislation into the Washington DC law enacted in 2021, which is the first single-use and rechargeables battery EPR law in the nation that also addresses battery-containing products. PSI is currently working in New York State to amend the 2010 Rechargeable Battery Law so that it includes e-Mobility devices, in order to decrease the potential for fires that have been rampant in New York City because of lithium-ion batteries in e-bicycles. 

Last year, representatives from 10 states joined our battery stakeholder group to develop PSI’s next-generation battery EPR legislative model, elements of which were included in the California law enacted in 2022 that was championed by the California Product Stewardship Council and Californians Against Waste, which also covered single use and rechargeable batteries. 

Washington’s new law was spearheaded by Heather Trim at Zero Waste Washington and PSI’s state and local members including Megan Warfield at the Washington State Department of Ecology and McKenna Morrigan at Seattle Public Utilities. The law includes best practice elements of battery EPR legislation, which are also included in PSI’s model. This law will create a statewide battery stewardship program for Washington that is managed and sustainably funded by producers, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and removing toxic substances from the waste stream. It is consistent with EPR best practices as it includes: 

• Performance goals to drive program effectiveness. 
• Convenience standards to ensure that the program is accessible state-wide. 
• Education and outreach, including resources targeted at overburdened and vulnerable communities to raise public awareness about how to recycle batteries. 
• Annual reporting to monitor program implementation. 

The law also contains other elements of successful programs, including material fees that incentivize environmental performance, a stewardship plan, and opportunities to improve the plan as the program is implemented and matures. Local governments will have the opportunity to participate in the program and be reimbursed by producers for their costs of collection; they will also save money as transportation and processing costs are assumed by producers.  

By October 2027, the Department of Ecology must complete an assessment and submit findings to the legislature on the opportunities and challenges associated with the end-of-life management of batteries not covered by the legislation, including large-format batteries and those in battery-containing products that are embedded and/or not designed to be easily removed. The assessment must consider which criteria of the legislation should apply to these batteries and battery-containing products. By April 2024, the Department of Ecology must also submit a report to the legislature on policy recommendations for the collection and management of electric vehicle batteries.   

Large format batteries that weigh more than 25 pounds, such as those used in electric vehicles, solar power systems, and data centers, are expected to experience significant market growth in the coming years. If these batteries are not collected and recycled, they will increase in the waste stream. Similarly, battery-embedded products either end up in the waste stream or are sent to battery/electronics recycling centers, where they are expensive to dispose of. Leading EPR battery programs in British Columbia and the European Union have already taken a step toward including a broader product scope that covers larger batteries and battery-embedded products. Some battery producers have global markets and sell into these jurisdictions and will have to meet these requirements there.  

Washington already has significant experience passing and implementing EPR programs for electronics and mercury-containing lamps and has more recently enacted stewardship programs for solar panels, pharmaceuticals, and paint, all of which are based on the fundamental principles of EPR. These laws improve collection convenience, build better supply chains, protect the environment and human health, and create jobs – all while significantly reducing the financial and management burden on local governments. We look forward to similarly positive outcomes from this new battery law! 

by the team at PaintCare, a PSI Partner

PaintCare, the nonprofit organization that plans and operates paint stewardship programs in states that pass the paint stewardship law, is proud to celebrate one year in New York. The New York PaintCare program launched on May 1, 2022, and has been providing more convenient paint recycling in the state over the past year. To date, PaintCare has collected 727,000 gallons of paint for recycling in the state.

PaintCare operates programs in 10 additional states and jurisdictions including CA, CO, CT, DC, ME, MN, OR, RI, VT, and WA. In these states, paint recycling is made more convenient for households, businesses, contractors, and others with unwanted, leftover paint. In New York, there are 285 drop-off sites open year-round for paint recycling, and 2,450 drop-off sites across all program states. This resource benefits all community members and is available across the state, including in New York City.

To find a drop-off site near you, use PaintCare’s drop-off site locator to find the most convenient options to recycle your unwanted paint. PaintCare also offers a large volume pick-up service (LVP) for anyone with 100 gallons or more of paint, measured by container size, not liquid volume. These resources are available to anyone in all PaintCare states who wish to responsibly recycle leftover paint.

PaintCare keeps paint out of the waste stream by offering convenient ways to manage it by offering tips on using up leftover paint and providing drop-off sites and events in which communities and businesses can drop off unwanted paint. To date, PaintCare has collected over 64 million gallons of paint for recycling across the country.

For more information about paint recycling and to contact your local representative, visit PaintCare online at www.paintcare.org or call them at (855) PAINT-09.

Follow PaintCare on social media @WeRecyclePaint on Facebook and Instagram!

by the team at GDB International, a PSI Partner

“The Earth is not a gift from our parents, it’s a loan from our children.” – Mahatma Gandhi.

Last year, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28. Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has used all the biological resources that Earth regenerates during the entire year. We know paint and coatings manufacturing is resource-intensive, so over 25 years ago, GDB Paint & Coatings set out to design several solutions to promote a net-zero paint industry.

Put simply, GDB gives new life to leftover and discarded paint. These solutions include taking a variety of materials that would otherwise be discarded as waste and reusing them in a sustainable manner.

Why is recycling important?

• Recycling a gallon of paint can save the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. Recycling paint needs much less energy than extracting and processing raw materials, as well as manufacturing new paint (PaintCare).
• Paint recycling saves the use of natural resources, such as minerals and petroleum. Recycling one gallon of paint can conserve up to 8 pounds of virgin raw materials (US Environmental Protection Agency).

Where does the leftover paint come from?

• The process begins by considering painters and DIY customers, who typically have leftover paint from domestic and industrial projects. This leftover paint makes up approximately 10% of the total paint used in the US annually.
• Some of this leftover paint comes to PaintCare, a non-profit product stewardship organization created by the American Coatings Association. PaintCare works across US states that pass paint stewardship laws. The program has been established in California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont and, most recently, Washington and New York. GDB is a PaintCare partner and receives some of the collected paint, where it is sorted, processed and remanufactured.
• Paint retailers and hardware stores often need to dispose of damaged products and mistints, which would also be considered waste.
• Paint manufacturers also contribute to this waste with their leftover materials. These materials include paint that isn’t quite the right tint or quality and leftover materials from the paint production process. The production process generates “wash water” used to clean mixing tanks and pipes, which contains residual pigments, resins and solvents.
• Lastly, raw material manufacturers may have stock that is too old to use or is not the right specification.

What does GDB do?

• GDB has a long track record of reusing pre-consumer, post-consumer and post-industrial materials, which includes those aforementioned materials. The company cleans out any impurities and carefully analyses and blends the materials together to create new high-quality, affordable and eco-friendly paint.

What’s the impact?

• In 2022, GDB reused paint and other materials leftover from consumers, retailers and paint manufacturers to make 3 million gallons of recycled paint – enough to paint all the homes in Salt Lake City. This achievement has significant environmental implications, as it not only reduces the amount of waste going to landfills but also saves resources by reusing the materials that would otherwise be wasted.
• In addition to the environmental benefits, this process also has economic benefits. By reusing leftover materials, GDB can reduce the costs of production, which translates to lower prices for the consumers. Furthermore, it creates a sustainable business model, providing a competitive edge in the market by positioning the company as an environmentally responsible and innovative player in the paint industry.

GDB reprocesses dozens of truckloads of leftover and discarded paint every day. It has been a success story, not only for the company but also for the environment. The company’s dedication to sustainable practices has proven that eco-friendliness and economic prosperity can go hand in hand. It sets an example for other companies in the industry to follow and encourages consumers to make conscious choices in selecting products that have a positive impact on the environment.

Get in touch!

• Come see us at the 2023 Florida Chapter NAHMMA Workshop in Daytona Beach, Florida on Monday May 15 thru Thursday May 18.
• Write to us at hello@gdbinternational.com
• Connect with us on LinkedIn

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing & Communications Director

A new survey commissioned by Covanta, a PSI partner, found that nearly half of Americans want to hold corporations more accountable for climate action — including 63% who believe companies should have strong sustainability platforms. With the global green technology and sustainability market expected to be worth $417 billion by 2030, companies are lining up their “green marketing” claims. As a result, “greenwashing” – marketing false or misleading claims about sustainability – is also on the rise.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides were established in 1992 to help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims – these include guidance on how to message about what can be recycled. However, the types of packaging that brands now use have evolved significantly since the Guides were last updated, in 2012. So, when the FTC invited public comments regarding its review of the Green Guides, PSI – and the Pack Green Coalition, a PSI partner – submitted analysis.

Our shared key priority is packaging EPR legislation, which holds manufacturers – known as “producers” – responsible for waste management and recycling, and incentivizes the incorporation of environmental considerations into product design, while educating the public about what can actually be recycled. In British Columbia, where packaging EPR has been in place since 2014, 90% of packaging is recycled.

In 2016, PSI developed model packaging EPR legislation, then updated it in 2019 with input from industry and government. PSI’s model eventually informed state EPR for PPP legislation, either indirectly, as in Maine and California, or somewhat more directly as in Oregon and Colorado.

Formed in 2022, the Pack Green Coalition educates and advocates for meaningful policies and laws to advance the replacement of unnecessary plastic in packaging supply chains with sustainable alternatives, playing a critical role in advancing the global transition to a circular economy.

A critical component of EPR for PPP laws and programs is consumer education about what can and cannot be recycled. Because of this, accurate federal guidelines are critical. PSI and PGC urged the FTC to update the Green Guides with more concrete guidance to marketers to accurately represent the circularity of the materials they use and avoid disrupting the recycling system.

Specifically, we requested updated guidance on “recyclable” claims. Currently, the Guides do not prevent misleading recyclability claims, so revising the criteria is imperative. For example, under the current requirements in the Guides, marketers can use unqualified recyclable claims if the material is accepted by a “substantial majority” (60%) of recycling facilities where the product is sold. Polypropylene packaging had a recycling rate of only 2.7% in the U.S. in 2018, but more than 60% of consumers had access to recycling facilities that accepted polypropylene tubs, bottles, jugs, and jars. There is a stark disconnect between materials that qualify to be labeled as “recyclable” and materials that are recycled. Mere “availability” of recycling facilities for a particular material is an inadequate indicator for whether that material can be credibly claimed to be recyclable.

“Recyclable” presently does not mean a product is actually getting recycled. In addition, the recycling rate for a given material should be based not on the amount collected but, rather, on the material’s (1) actual reclamation at appropriate facilities that meet the requirements of the Basel Convention and (2) re-entry into the commerce stream. In addition, plastic items should meet the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ APR Design® Guide for recyclability.

We urged the FTC to revise the Guides to require that a product may only be labelled as “recyclable” (whether through text or symbol) if it meets the recyclability thresholds mentioned above and if the material type and form routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging, as California mandated through SB 343. These requirements will increase circularity of the U.S. economy and instill greater confidence and trust in the U.S. recycling system.

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

The fashion industry is one of the world’s worst polluters: It accounts for 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions and more than four percent of the waste stream. As textiles decompose in landfills, they emit high levels of methane gas, which is a primarily contributor to global warming; dyes and other additives can leach into soil and contaminate groundwater. Although 95% of these materials are either reusable or recyclable, only about 15% are used again. 

That’s the problem that California seeks to solve with SB 707, a first-in-the-nation textile Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law. Producers of textiles – as well as products made from textiles, such as accessories and furniture – will be required to implement and fund an EPR program to enhance recycling, increase reuse, and incentivize the design of products that are environmentally responsible – such as those made from recycled materials. Thrift stores, which have long served as second-hand markets for textiles, will also become collection sites, part of an integrated system for sorting and recycling used textiles that cannot be reused or resold. The program would be managed by the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).  

California is first – but it won’t be the last. In 2022, Massachusetts’ 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan updated regulations went into effect, adding textiles (and mattresses) to the list of materials banned from disposal or transport for disposal in another state. Clothing, curtains, towels, and other fabrics currently make up 6% of the waste that is incinerated or disposed of each year in landfills and waste-to-energy plants in the state, but analysis shows that 95% of the 230,000 tons of textiles discarded annually could be reused or recycled. The goal of the 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan is to reduce disposal by 30% over the next decade and by 90% by 2050, and strategies for reaching these objectives include these new bans. By promoting textile recycling, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has begun to build an infrastructure that could lay the groundwork for textiles EPR. 

In 2008, France became the first country to enact a textile EPR law; by 2020, 39% of products were being collected. Programs like these incentivize the design of more sustainable products and build supply chains for those made with recycled materials, which are the building blocks of an emerging circular economy that protects our environment and builds a better future. 

Although PSI did not work on California’s legislation, in 2016 we facilitated a multi-stakeholder working group in New York to develop the first standards for used textile collection, which were adopted by Goodwill and the Salvation Army, among others. The following year, we partnered again with the New York State Association of Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling and the New York Product Stewardship Council to host a broad group of stakeholders – including manufacturers, retailers, recycling/reuse organizations, fashion industry representatives, state and local government, researchers, nonprofits, and consumers – at an interactive summit at the Fashion Institute of Technology to discuss innovations in textiles production, recovery, recycling, and policy –including EPR.  

We are thrilled to see California consider this bold step – and look forward to its global impact when the legislation becomes law.  

by Will Grassle, Associate Policy & Programs

We’ve come a long way from Woodsy the owl’s “give a hoot don’t pollute” campaign. Here’s a brief overview of how litter laws work with EPR in the United States – from enacted laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California, to Washington’s Recycling and Packaging (WRAP) Act, which recently failed; it which would have established an EPR program and bottle bill in the state.

OREGON 

Section 26a, Chapter 681, Oregon Laws 2021: “Requires DEQ to conduct a statewide needs assessment to identify where litter prevention and cleanup is needed and report to the Legislature. The report is due no later than September 15, 2026. The legislative report may include recommendations for adding litter and marine debris obligations to the PRO’s responsibilities, and recommendations for funding such responsibilities.”

CALIFORNIA

“The bill would require a PRO, commencing in the 2027 calendar year, and until January 1, 2037, to remit a $500,000,000 surcharge each year, as provided, to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to be deposited into the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund, which the bill would create, and would outline requirements applicable to the collection and administration of the surcharge.”

“(j) (1) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, 40 percent of the moneys in the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund shall be expended by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Wildlife Conservation Board, the State Coastal Conservancy, the California Coastal Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Natural Resources Agency, and the California Environmental Protection Agency to monitor and reduce the environmental impacts of plastics on terrestrial, aquatic, and marine life and human health, including to restore, recover, and protect the natural environment”

“(k) (1) Upon appropriation by the Legislature, 60 percent of the moneys in the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund shall be expended by the Strategic Growth Council, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Natural Resources Agency, and the Department of Justice to monitor and reduce the historical and current environmental justice and public health impacts of plastics, including to mitigate the historical and current impact of plastics on disadvantaged or low-income communities or rural areas.

MAINE 

“The stewardship organization shall annually disburse to participating municipalities from the packaging stewardship fund established under subsection 12 reimbursement payments for the median per-ton cost of managing packaging material that is readily recyclable and reimbursement payments for the median per-ton cost of managing packaging material that is not readily recyclable. For the purposes of this subsection, the cost to a municipality of managing packaging material may include, but is not limited to, the costs associated with the collection, transportation and processing of packaging material, whether readily recyclable or not readily recyclable.”

COLORADO 

“‘Recycling services costs’ means the costs of recycling programs to provide recycling services, including applicable costs related to:

(e) disposal of nonrecyclable collected covered materials.

(j) include reimbursement rates for one hundred percent of the net recycling services costs of the recycling services provided by service providers under the program consistent with the requirements of section 25-17-706.

The educational and outreach program must include “(c) how to prevent littering in the process of providing recycling services for covered materials.”

WASHINGTON 

Washington State has a tax on frequently littered items, which is used in part to clean up and prevent litter; this was not a primary focus of WA’s EPR for PPP Bill, known as the WRAP Act, which recently failed to pass the House.  However, it did include a study of litter and marine debris in the needs assessment in section 105: “(i) Evaluate the extent to which covered products contribute to litter and marine debris for the purpose of informing how a producer responsibility organization implementing a plan can support litter and marine debris prevention as it relates to activities required under this chapter. The assessment should draw on available data, assess gaps, and identify strategies for improving prevention and cleanup of litter and marine debris from covered products.”

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

Consumers use one trillion single-use food and beverage packaging items in the United States each year – which make up nearly seventy percent of the litter found in the environment. According to Upstream, an environmental nonprofit, resources to manufacture these products include 10% of harvested wood, 20% of mined aluminum, 40% of plastic, and 50% of glass.

That’s the problem that the burgeoning reuse economy seeks to solve by establishing systems for consumers to purchase products in reusable packaging and then return for refill at stores, restaurants, or entertainment venues. But how does Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fit in? This question was explored on a recent webinar moderated by Upstream’s new policy director, Sydney Harris (formerly of PSI) where Will Grassle, PSI’s Associate for Policy & Programs, was one of four panelists.

Panelist Jennifer Navarra of Zero Waste Hawai’i described how the state was able to prioritize reuse in their packaging EPR bill because of the lack of existing recycling infrastructure. “It doesn’t make sense to invest in the recycling system because we don’t have it,” she said. “It makes sense for us to start with reuse and reduction.”

McKenna Morrigan of Seattle Public Utilities agreed that reuse should be included in packaging EPR legislation, as it was in Washington’s bill. “Some of the arguments against making reusables subject to fees is that they are a small part of the packaging universe,” she said. “But if the future of reuse goes where we want it to, we need to make sure that it is part of the EPR program. If it is left out, there will be a structural problem with how the program will operate in the future.”

PSI has long advocated for reuse. In late 2022, we hosted a series of stakeholder meetings to discuss how EPR could introduce and strengthen reuse, which are being implemented into PSI’s framework policy elements for packaging EPR. We recommend that:

• Reusables should be defined as products that are reused for their original purpose in their original form.
• Reusables should be a covered material if a robust recycling program is in place in the state.
• If a robust recycling program is not in place, covered materials should not initially include reusables; however, they should be considered in the future as recycling infrastructures evolve.
• If reusables are covered, funding allocation should cover reuse infrastructure and services.
• A needs assessment should be required to analyze existing reuse operators and infrastructure and determine opportunities and gaps to expand reuse throughout the state.
• Eco-modulated fees should be lower for reusables than other covered materials.
• Outreach and education requirements should include materials that identify which covered materials are reusable and how to reuse them.
• The annual report should analyze reusable displacement – the amount of reusables returned and/or refilled versus the amount entering the market.
• If reusables are covered, a reuse operator should be included on the advisory council.
• When reusables are covered, manufacturers should only pay when they enter the market.
• The same metrics that are used for other packaging materials should be used for reusables.
• The state should have the ability to adjust reuse targets over time.

“There are really two paths,” Grassle summarized. “In states with robust recycling systems, reusable packaging should be a covered material at the start, and therefore, the program should cover costs relating to improvements in reuse infrastructure and services. In states without robust recycling, the state should consider leaving reusables out of covered materials for the first plan cycle and focus on improving their recycling system but should consider including reusables in future plan cycles. In either case, the statute should clarify that expanding reuse is a priority and one of the program’s ultimate goals.”

Most of these recommendations align with Upstream’s recently launched Principles for Reuse/Refill in EPR and DRS (deposit return systems). And they make their way into legislation recently introduced in several states.

However, David Allaway of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality cautioned that statutes must include specific targets to hold PROs accountable. “We can’t repeat the mistake that the recycling community has made for the past 30 years…treating recycling like magic fairy dust,” he said. “There are cases where reuse does not make environmental sense.” He cited the example of the aluminum container that Loop designed for Häagen-Dazs, which is reusable but also has a high negative environmental impact.

Upstream’s stated goal is to reimagine packaging as a service rather than a product to facilitate 30% of consumable goods sold in reusable formats in the U.S. and Canada by 2030. As states increasingly consider legislation to address packaging waste, it just makes sense to build principles of reuse into EPR laws.