Update: EPR in US · 2011-11-28 · Product Waste • No incentive for manufacturers to design...
38
Update: EPR in US Sego Jackson Principal Planner Snohomish County Solid Waste Division Washington State, USA [email protected] Sixth International Workshop Nov 16-18 Panama City, Panama
Transcript of Update: EPR in US · 2011-11-28 · Product Waste • No incentive for manufacturers to design...
Update: EPR in US
Sego Jackson
Principal PlannerSnohomish County Solid Waste Division
Washington State, [email protected]
Sixth International WorkshopNov 16-18
Panama City, Panama
4
What I’ll Cover
• Brief history of waste and local government responsibilities
• Update on spread of EPR in US states• Details on Washington and Oregon programs as
example• Role and impact on local governments using
Snohomish County as example• Encouraging Reuse• Examples of data tracking and program comparison• Framework approaches
A Simpler Time
6© 2009 Product Policy Institute
waste management was a private sector activity
before 1900 …
7© 2009 Product Policy Institute
8© 2009 Product Policy Institute
9© 2009 Product Policy Institute
10© 2009 Product Policy Institute
citizens demanded action ….
11© 2009 Product Policy Institute
…. local government responded
12© 2009 Product Policy Institute
13© 2009 Product Policy Institute
CARD OF INSTRUCTION FOR HOUSEHOLDERS
Put into GarbageReceptacles
Kitchen orTable Waste,Vegetables,
Meats,Fish,
Bones,Fat.
Put into AshReceptacles
Ashes, Sawdust,Floor and
Street Sweepings,Broken Glass,
Broken Crockery,*Oyster and Clam
Shells,Tin Cans.
Put into RubbishBundles
Bottles, Paper,Pasteboard, etc.
Rags, Mattresses,Old Clothes, Old Shoes,
Leather and Leather Scrap,Carpets, Tobacco Stems,
Straw and Excelsior,(from households only)
The Sanitary Code requires householders and occupants to provide separate receptaclesfor ashes and garbage and forbids mixing these in the same receptacle.
This law will be strictly enforced.
Waste was different, simpler…
New York City - 1905
14© 2009 Product Policy Institute
955
92
187
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1900NYC
Poun
ds /
Cap
ita /
Yea
r
Inorganics
Food/Yard
Products
14
358
607
1960USA
25
387
1,213
2000USA
Waste “Generated”
But waste changed …
Begin responsibility Now
Disposable by DesignWe are enabling non-sustainable
design and consumption.“Welfare for Waste”
Product Waste
• No incentive for manufacturers to design
better products.• Government and
ratepayers pay for recycling/disposal.
Images from the Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard from www.storyofstuff.com
Yesterday’s Waste Management System
Producer
StewardshipOrganization
Product Waste
Producers want lower costs:• Recycled materials used in new
products.• Recycling drives less toxic and easier to recycle product design
The New Product Management System
Producer
Producer
18
Washington2006
Oregon2007
Electronic Waste Laws Passed
More Laws Introduced 2009
The Basics:
• Product manufacturers implement & finance recycling program throughout the state
• No state tax or fee charged to the consumer at point of purchase or end of life = “cost internalization”
• Covered Products - computers, computer monitors, laptop computers and televisions
• Geographic “convenience” requirement
• Program Implementation Date – January 1, 2009
Washington and Oregon’s EPR E-waste Laws
22
Results for Washington State
Washington State– Service in all 39 counties– Service in all cities with population greater than
10,000– Currently 242 collection sites– New businesses started– New processors established in state
– First 9 months of operation – over 29.6 Million lbs.– If trend continues = 5.8 lbs per capita per year
23
What We PROJECTED Results would be for Snohomish County
Snohomish County – 3 public transfer stations provide collection
• $370,000 in current costs removed since transportation and recycling is covered by producers
• Payment of $.09 per lb. collected projected to
yield payment of $180,000 in 09.
• Total value to Sno Co = $550,000 per year
24
What Actually Happened inSnohomish County in First 6 Months
Snohomish County – 3 public transfer stations provide collection
• $336,000 in current costs removed since transportation and recycling is covered by manufacturers
• Payment of $.09 per lb. collected yielded
payment of $170,000 in first 6 months.
• Total value to Sno Co = $506,000 per 6 months!
25
Many Others Benefit inSnohomish County
Just in Snohomish County (pop. 690,000)– Currently 17 additional private/charity locations with
similar benefits, including Goodwill– Program available to:
• 275,000 households• 18 of our 19 cities and towns• 200 schools and school districts• 1,150 charities• 90 special service districts, such as libraries• 20,000 small businesses with 50 employees or less
26
Big Surprise: The Economy
Snohomish County Government – Had to rapidly reduce solid waste staffing– Through union negotiations management agreed
layoffs would happen across all work groups– 25% staff reduction included discontinuing
electronics collection at 3 transfer stations– Possible to do because 17 other private locations
provide collection service in county– Perfect example of EPR providing local government
flexibility.
27
Washington Materials Management andFinancing Authority (default program)Governance Structure October 2009
MikeWatson, Dell(Vice Chair)
WMMFAJohn Friedrick,
Exective Director
MaryJacquest,Lenovo
(Secretary)
MeganEhret,
Thomson(Treasurer)
GreggChason, P&F
USA
ErikStromquist,
CTL
SusanWright,Osram
SylvaniaStaceyWard,
Wal-MartNick Amman,
Apple(At-Large
Exec Cmte)
TalalEl-Husseini,PC Systemsand Services
Mark Dabek,Re-PC
28
Approved 2009 Oregon ProgramsResponsible Entities in each Program
Acer/Gateway
IPR19% RSBW
Sony LG
MRM41% RSBW
Panasonic,Shharp,Toshiba
About 12other TV
mfrs
State ContractorProgram (NCER)
33% RSBW
OregonDEQ
Dell7% RSBW
Dell
RSBW = Return Share By Weight
29
Encouraging Reuse
Washington– Collectors allowed to repair and resell for reuse on
site – doesn’t count as tonnage and no reimbursement
– Programs using reuse charities as collectors provided “bonus”
– Producers doing reuse cannot count in recycling count
30
Encouraging Reuse
Collector Types
Oregon Washington# Collection Sites 225 242
# Government 55 19
percent sites 24% 8%# Private Businesses 49 82
percent sites 22% 34%# Reuse and charity organizations 121 141
percent sites 54% 58%
Oregon 2009 Q1 Collections
Program
Minimum RSW in pounds RSW % Q1 in lbs % of goal units reuse
MRM 5,030,494 41.20% 2281327 45.35% 2466
IPR 2,292,501 18.78% 743374 32.43% 0
Dell 801,488 6.56% 1111472 138.68% 2745
SCP 4,085,517 33.46% 802368 19.64% 3727
TOTAL 12,210,000 100.00% 4,938,541 40.45% 8938
lbs per cap 3.300 1.3347408
32
33
Leveraging E-waste Laws
35
A Pattern is Developingfor EPR Policy
• Producers Have Primary Responsibility– Independent or Collective Programs
• Use Stewardship Organization– Responsible for financing and organizing collection
through processing (remove costs from governments)
– Develop and submit plans and annual reports
• Shared Responsibility – others have roles
• No legislated fees – costs are internalized
36
EPR Pattern Yields Framework Approach
Government sets level field, performance standards, prioritizes products
Government ensures transparency, accountability
Producers design plans and finance, as a condition for sale
Why not make this approach standardized for multiple products?
37
Joint Framework PrinciplesCA, NW, VT, BC, TX
38
Conclusions
• Local governments should not be considered responsible party for something they have no control over
• EPR continues to spread rapidly in U.S.• Should cover cost of collection to expand
collection types and opportunities• Local governments are benefiting• Charity reuse and nonprofits have very
significant role and are benefiting financially
