Recycling

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.

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the eighth and final part of our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on key definitions and additional components, which refers to additional sections of the bill that do not fit into the other elements. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five.  For information on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice, take a look at part six; part seven covers the implementation timeline.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

MAINE 

KEY DEFINITIONS 

• “Recycling” means the transforming or remanufacturing of an unwanted product into usable or marketable materials.  
• “Recycling” does not include landfill disposal, incineration; energy recovery or generation by means of combustion with or without other waste. 
• “Reuse” means a change in ownership of a product for use in the same manner for which it was originally made. 

• No additional components are included.

OREGON

KEY DEFINITIONS 

• “Mechanical Recycling”: does not change the basic molecular structure of material being recycled. 
• “Commingled recycling” means the recycling or recovery of two or more materials that are mixed and would be separated into individual materials at a facility for marketing. 
• “Recycling” means any process by which solid waste materials are transformed into new products in a manner that the original products may lose their identity. 
• “Compost” means the controlled biological decomposition of organic material, or the product made by this process. 

• “Reuse” means the return of a commodity into the economic stream for use in the same kind of application as before without alteration. 
• Act changed the definition of “Recyclable Material” to include any material named by the commission and assigned to either acceptance list. 

• Waste Prevention and Reuse: Producers pay into fund that provides state-run grants or loans for projects that reduce the environmental impacts of covered materials through means beyond recycling/recovery. 
• Truth-in-Labeling Task Force: State convenes a multi-stakeholder Truth in Labeling task force to study misleading claims of recyclability. Task Force submits report and recommendations to the legislature by June 1, 2022.  
• Additional State Agency Tasks: State charged with developing a permitting and certification process for MRFs and assessing the impacts of a potential state procurement policy for recycled products, plastic, and other materials. 
• Repeals statewide requirement to place resin identification code with chasing arrows on plastic containers (ORS 459A.680).

COLORADO

KEY DEFINITIONS 

• “Mechanical Recycling”: does not change the basic molecular structure of material being recycled. 

• “Recycling” does not include energy recovery or energy generation thru combustion; use as a fuel; alternative daily cover; landfill disposal. 
• Recycling rate measured when materials are prepared for sale or delivery to reclaimers or end markets. 
• “Compostable”: covered material associated with organic waste streams, capable of undergoing aerobic biological decomposition in controlled composting system (ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868, or successor standards). 
• “Reuse” or “refill” means returning covered materials to the marketplace that have already been used in same manner as originally intended without change in purpose and was intended to be used for original purpose >5 times. 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS

CALIFORNIA

KEY DEFINITIONS 

• “Recycling” means collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise be disposed of. Materials must be sent to responsible end markets; state may establish regulations to define these markets. 
• “Recycling” does not include combustion; incineration; energy generation; fuel production (except for organic materials); landfill disposal. 
• Recycling rate measured by dividing amount of materials recycled by total amount of materials disposed of and recycled. 
• “Reuse” or “refill” means using materials that are designed for multiple uses/durability; supported by adequate infrastructure to facilitate reuse/refilling; frequently reissued into supply chain. 

• California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund: Producers pay $500 million annually into a fund that is used by the state to pay for programs that monitor and reduce the environmental, public health, and environmental justice impacts of plastics. 40% goes to environmental funds and 60% goes to environmental justice funds. Producers may collect up to 30% of this payment ($150 million) from plastic resin manufacturers. 

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the seventh in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on the implementation timeline. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five.  For information on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice, take a look at part six.

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

MAINE 

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

• July 2022: Administration funds available to ME DEP 
• December 2023: Rulemaking process initiated. Rules adopted by Spring/Summer 2025. 
• Anticipated by Fall 2025: RFP issued for SO by ME DEP.
• Anticipated by 2026: SO selected; implementation begins.  
• Plan & Contract with DEP renewed every 10 years.

OREGON

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

• 2022: Advisory Council appointed by OR DEQ – began meeting May 2022.  
• July 1, 2023: OR DEQ completes first needs assessment. 
• Stewardship plan(s) due by March 31, 2024. 
• Implementation begins July 1, 2025. 
• Initial stewardship plan(s) cover 3 years. After 2027, plan(s) cover 5 years. 

COLORADO

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

• December 31, 2022: Advisory Board appointed by CDPHE.  
• June 1, 2023: PRO formed. 
• September 1, 2023: Needs assessment work must begin.  
• March 2024: Needs assessment must be sent to legislature for approval. 
• Stewardship plan due by February 1, 2025 (to Advisory Board);  
• Producers must join PRO by July 1, 2025 and pay fees after plan is approved by state.  
• Stewardship plans cover 5 years. 

CALIFORNIA

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 

• July 1, 2023: Advisory Board appointed by CalRecycle. 
• January 1, 2024: PRO formed; CalRecycle to publish a list of recyclable & compostable materials and covered material categories. 
• January 1, 2025: Regulations adopted. 
• Implementation begins January 1, 2027. 
• Stewardship plan renewed every 5 years.

by the team at Covanta, a PSI Partner

In the United States, we still bury more than half of our waste in landfills, losing valuable resources and harming the environment in the process as those materials release exorbitant amounts of methane into the atmosphere and contaminants into our soil and waterways.

On the surface, sending waste to landfills may seem to be the easiest and most economical route to waste disposal. But aside from the hidden liabilities and harmful effects, the upfront cost of landfill disposal is steadily rising as landfill space becomes ever more scarce. According to the Environmental Research & Education Foundation, landfill tipping fees increased annually on average between 5% and 7% — measurements taken before the sharp rise in supply chain issues and inflation.

By adopting zero waste-to-landfill processes and policies in order to divert waste away from landfills, companies can do more to preserve the environment and bolster their bottom lines: They can reduce logistics expenses and landfill fees, improve environmental compliance and reap positive public relations benefits.

This can all be accomplished by reducing the amount of waste your business generates, amplifying your recycling efforts, and finding sustainable solutions that extract value from the materials that remain.

Visit Covanta’s blog to learn the four steps that can help companies create an effective zero waste-to-landfill plan.

by Will Grassle, Junior Associate, Policy & Programs

In the last two years, packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation was enacted in four states. So how do they compare? In this summary comparison, we look at similarities and differences in the laws, which will impact new legislation that we expect to be introduced in a significant number of states in the coming year. This is the sixth in our multi-part blog series that analyzes the four packaging EPR laws.

This blog focuses on outreach and education requirements, and equity and environmental justice. For analysis of covered materials and products, please read part one; for a summary of covered materials, collection and convenience standards, please read part two. Part three covers whether or not there are unique provisions and/or exemptions in the legislation related to the “producer” responsible for funding and managing the EPR program; it also lays out each state’s criteria for determining the governance roles: program operations, administration, multi-stakeholder input, oversight, and enforcement. Part four focuses on funding inputs and allocations – how funding enters the EPR system and how EPR program funds are spent. To read about design for environment and performance standards, please read part five. 

To complete this analysis, we used PSI’s Elements of Effective EPR Legislation to compare the laws in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Our elements use the following criteria:  

• covered materials/products  

• covered entities  

• collection and convenience   

• responsible party (i.e. “producer”)  

• governance, funding inputs  

• funding allocation  

• design for environment  

• performance standards  

• outreach and education requirements  

• equity and environmental justice  

• implementation timeline  

• key definitions  

• additional components

For brevity, our analysis of these four laws did not include the following elements: enforcement and penalties for violation, stewardship plan contents, and annual report contents.  

MAINE 

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

• SO may fund outreach and education campaigns as needed after municipal reimbursements and administrative costs are covered. 

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• No additional equity components are included.

OREGON

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

• PRO(s) fund and coordinate outreach and education. Municipalities continue local education programs. 
• Outreach materials must be culturally responsive to non-English speakers and disabled residents. 

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• Processors must provide living wages and benefits to workers and ensure worker health, safety, and wellbeing to receive a permit or certification from the state
• Local governments must ensure access to collection for non-English speakers and disabled residents. 
• State must conduct studies on equity within the recycling system and access to collection for multifamily housing and recommend improvements to the program. The equity study repeats periodically.  
• PRO(s), in conjunction with processors, must ensure products go to responsible end markets. 

COLORADO

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

• PRO funds and implements statewide outreach program to increase recycling and reuse of covered materials. May contract with service providers, NGOs, or local government to conduct local outreach.
• Required to work with existing education and outreach programs in the state. 

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• “Responsible End Market”: a materials market in which recycling, or disposal of contaminants benefits the environment and minimizes risks to public health and worker health and safety. 
• PRO must give preference to service providers with strong labor standards and worker safety practices.  
• Any chemical recycling process must be used for food-grade applications and meet environmental standards. 
• One seat on AB designated for representative of a group focused on Environmental Justice. AB members compensated for travel and time to ensure they are not precluded from participation by lack of funds. 

CALIFORNIA

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

• PRO funds and implements outreach and education campaigns in coordination with existing outreach campaigns. Municipalities continue to implement local education programs and receive reimbursements for these expenses. 

EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• All regulations established by the state must consider environmental justice impacts. 
• 60% of the overall funds from the California Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund go to environmental justice initiatives (see Element #13: Extra Initiatives). 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director

PSI CEO and Founder Scott Cassel recently joined two expert panelists for a webinar discussion of EPR that was hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Trash Free Waters program.

PSI and US EPA have a long history. Beginning in 2003, we worked together to facilitate a multi-stakeholder dialogue — which included industry, government, and recycled paint manufacturers — and to develop a legislative model for paint EPR.

The mission of the Trash Free Waters program is to protect human health, aquatic ecosystems, and the economy by partnering on collaborative solutions to reduce the volume of trash — especially plastic materials — polluting our rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. Because of this, the focus of the discussion was packaging EPR. Scott was joined by Kelly McBee, Circular Economy Senior Coordinator at As You Sow, and Maine State Senator Nicole Grohoski, in a discussion moderated by Kathleen Brady, Vice President of ERG.

Romell Nandi, an Environmental Protection Specialist at US EPA, introduced the discussion of EPR, which was positioned in the webinar description as a powerful tool to realize the mission of Trash Free Waters: “Positively changing consumer behavior, expanding recycling infrastructure, installing trash capture devices in waterways or as part of stormwater conveyance systems and more constitute parts of the solution space – but in and of themselves, these solutions may not be adequate to keep waterways clean. A potentially impactful step that is now being considered and increasingly implemented throughout the United States is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).”

The power of packaging EPR was echoed by all three speakers including McBee, who recommended pursuit of a national packaging EPR system — a call to action that Cassel has proposed to US EPA, most recently at a 2022 stakeholder consultation meeting organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

Panelists were also in agreement on the need for eco-modulated fees to level the playing field. “Those that choose to use better products are ahead of the game,” Cassel said. “Those they are dragging are going to find themselves at a disadvantage.” And Cassel and Grohoski warned that the cost increase argument is a red herring — there is no evidence from Europe or Canada that consumer prices go up under packaging EPR.

Similarly, the three panelists all cited the need for agreed-upon term definitions, which are currently fragmented both within the U.S. and globally: “Definitions will be crucial,” McBee said, ” as companies set goals and achieve them.” This is an area where the agency may be able to help: As Cassel shared at the OECD meeting, US EPA can provide guidance and technical support on issues such as packaging labeling; a standard definition of recycling; and goals for source reduction, reuse, recycling, and post-consumer recycled content. 

The webinar will be archived in the Trash Free Waters Webinar Library.