by Julia Wagner, Marketing and Communications Manager

As a preview to the types of high-level conversations that we anticipate at PSI’s forthcoming U.S. Product Stewardship Forum this September, three EPR luminaries joined PSI’s CEO and Founder, Scott Cassel, to kick off our recent Annual Meeting for Members and Partners.  

Allen Hershkowitz, Environmental Science Advisor to The New York Yankees, Reid Lifset, Research Scientist at the Yale University School of the Environment, and Joachim Quoden, Managing Director of EXPRA, shared information on the genesis of EPR in the United States and where they believe the movement is headed globally. From market-based environmentalism to the impact of the Global Plastics Treaty, the perspective was riveting. Follow us on Instagram @ProductSteward to listen in! 

This has been an exciting year for EPR, and our enthusiasm was reflected by attending Members and Partners. We saw 42 bills to establish new EPR programs and 11 to amend existing EPR laws, including a new EPR law for batteries in Washington, an amendment to Oregon’s drug takeback law, and a first-in-the-nation Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) law in Vermont, which brings the tally to 133 nationwide. (Check out our EPR Laws Map, where one state changed color just this week!) And Maryland enacted a study bill that will likely lead to passage of packaging EPR in that state in 2025. We expect that soon we’ll have more announcements: Legislation awaiting a governor’s signature includes a paint EPR bill and a packaging EPR study bill in Illinois, and a first-in-the-nation EPR for tires bill in Connecticut. In Oregon, an electronics EPR amendment bill is also being considered by the legislature. 

PSI has been right there beside our Members and Partners every step of the way – and this year was no exception. Suna Bayrakal, PSI’s Director of Policy and Programs, shared news of our work with Metro in Portland to help develop a vision for effective and equitable implementation of the Oregon mattress law in the area, as well as our engagement with SMR and other recyclers to pursue battery EPR legislation in New York state, in response to concerns about battery fires in New York City.  

Lelande Rehard, our Senior Associate of Policy and Programs, reported on PSI’s: 

Lelande also reported that PSI was recently engaged by Worthington Industries to develop gas cylinder EPR legislation in other states, building off of Connecticut’s success.  

PSI’s work on pharmaceuticals and medical sharps stewardship continues, with Hanz Atia, Associate of Policy and Programs, reporting on that front. In collaboration with the Missouri Pharmaceuticals Working Group, we connected over 100,000 with resources including the Missouri take-back map webpage, increasing traffic by 600%; we also hosted the second Missouri Pharmaceuticals Stewardship Stakeholder Summit and worked with Rx for Climate to create a continuing education course for pharmacists in Missouri that included information on responsible drug disposal. In partnership with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, we implemented a project funded by the U.S. EPA to expand access to save medical sharps disposal across the state, reaching nearly 145,000 people with resources and inspiring discussions with the Department of Health to create a state-wide sharps take-back program. 

As explained by Will Grassle, Associate of Policy and Programs, packaging EPR was once again a leading policy priority, with 17 unique bills introduced in 12 states (not including study bills) in this legislative session alone. PSI worked extensively to educate stakeholders on a range of related topics, including: 

If you are interested in Membership or Partnership, click here. As Scott put it, “Let’s all acknowledge that this is a new phase in the EPR movement – we’re in prime time now! After more than two decades of capacity building, advocacy, and enacting laws in the U.S., we now have a robust eco-system of EPR professionals advancing the field in every corner of the country – state and local governments, large and small businesses, nonprofits, and academic institutions.” 

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing & Communications Director

Next week, world leaders will gather for the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. Although PSI was invited to attend and contributed to discussions leading up to the event, we were unable to make the trip.

INC-2 will take place from May 29 to June 2 at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquarters in Paris. This meeting will be followed by INC-3 in Kenya in November and INC-4 in Canada in April 2024. At each meeting, EPR will be front and center.

Recently, the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network shared analysis of proposals submitted by UN member states, which showed that 60% referenced EPR. OPLN indicated that the number was probably higher because those that referenced “product stewardship” rather than “EPR” were not included in the evaluation.

Critical to the conversation is the Peak Plastics report published by Economist Impact and The Nippon Foundation earlier this year as part of their Back to Blue initiative. This report showed that on their own, many of the policies being considered — including Single Use Plastic Product (SUPP) bans, EPR for packaging, and an aggressive carbon tax on virgin plastic — are insufficient to affect the projected doubling of plastic consumption by 2050. However, when implemented together they could significantly reduce consumption: “EPR is…vital, as it will improve waste collection and increase recycling rates, which will curtail plastic leakage into the environment.” This is in keeping with PSI’s perspective on EPR for packaging, which is most effective when implemented alongside additional measures such as reuse strategies. 

The genesis of these discussions began at the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2) in 2022, when UNEA Resolution 5/14 was adopted. Its goal is to develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution by 2024. Without significant intervention, the UN projects a tripling of the amount of plastic waste entering the marine environment — from as much as 14 million tons per year in 2016 to as much as 37 million tons in 2040.

 

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 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?

Where does the leftover paint come from?

What does GDB do?

What’s the impact?

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!

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:

“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:  

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 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS


OREGON

KEY DEFINITIONS 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS


COLORADO

KEY DEFINITIONS 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS

Starting in 2028, CDPHE must review consumer cost impacts from the program, including the prices of goods, local government expenditures, and consumer spending on recycling and trash services. Must repeat this review every three years. 


CALIFORNIA

KEY DEFINITIONS 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS