EPR IN THE US WHAT’S WORKING AND WHY

Northeast Recycling Council Fall Conference

November 13, 2017

1

Are you ready to

effect change?

ORGANICS MANAGEMENT

WASTE RECOVERY

GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY

© RRS 2017 2

© RRS 2017

WHAT WE DO SINCE 1986, RRS has expanded its services throughout the value chain:

• Planning/Implementing recycling and composting programs.

• Planning/Implementing materials management and zero waste solutions.

• Waste and compliance training.

• Developing/Facilitating collaborations to increase commodity recovery.

• Analyzing the recyclability and compostability of packaging.

• Evaluating anaerobic digestion and biomass facilities.

• Food waste prevention and organics recovery planning.

• Reviewing/Negotiating hauler and MRF contracts.

• Designing/Permitting MRF and composting sites.

• Developing/Implementing multi-stakeholder communications and outreach.

Much of our work is customized to the client’s situation. Talk to us to see if we are the right fit to help you effect change.

© RRS 2017

WHO WE ARE

30 40

660 1,000

OUR SKILLS years in recycling and managing resources

employees in 3 countries

years combined field experience

projects across 9 markets

4

A TIMELINE OF EPR IN THE US

© RRS 2017

1987 NERC founded

1990 Thomas Lindhqvist coins the phrase EPR in report to Swedish Government

1991 German Packaging EPR/ Green Dot

1996-2006 OECD Analyses/ reports on EPR

1996-1998 US President’s Council on Sustainable Development Explores EPR

2014 VT Single Use

Battery Recycling EPR

2013 Mattress EPR

2010

CA Carpet EPR Maine EPR Framework

2012 - current Pharmaceuticals

EPR

2009-2016 Flourescent Light Bulb EPR

2009-current

Paint EPR

2006-2013 Thermostat EPR

1994 EU Directive on Packaging & Packaging Waste

2003-2014 E-Scrap EPR

2002-2006 Mercury Switch EPR

1994-1996 Rechargeable Battery EPR

1980s Beverage Container Deposits

6 © RRS 2017

WHY CHOOSE EPR?

Increase diversion

and recovery

Reduce cost to

government

Incorporate the cost of recycling / end-of-life

management in the cost of the product

Improve the design of

products to reduce

environmental impact

CHALLENGES IN EVALUATING EPR PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

7

• Pre-program data not available in most states, so before and after comparisons are difficult

• Little data available on recovery of most EPR target products in non-EPR states

• Limited visibility into local government budgets, pre- and post- EPR implementation to evaluate cost savings

© RRS 2017

8 © RRS 2017

DOES EPR ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES?

Increase diversion

and recovery

Reduce cost to

government

Incorporate the cost of recycling / end-of-life

management in the cost of the product

Improve the design of

products to reduce

environmental impact

9

DOES EPR INCREASE RECOVERY? CT EXAMPLE

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000

2012 2013 2014 2015

Perc

ent o

f ge

nera

ted

mat

eria

l rec

ycle

d

Mat

tres

ses a

nd B

ox

Sprin

gs (u

nits

)

MATTRESSES RECYCLED & DISPOSED: 2010-2015

Mattresses recycled(units)

Mattresses disposed(units)

Percent of generatedmattresses recycled

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Poun

ds p

er C

apita

Poun

ds (t

hous

ands

)

CHANGE IN E-WASTE COLLECTED

Total e-waste collected(lbs)

CEDs collected (lbs)

E-waste collected percapita (lbs)

Source: Product Stewardship Institute for CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

10

DOES EPR INCREASE RECOVERY? CT EXAMPLE

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Perc

ent o

f G

ener

ated

Th

erm

osta

ts C

olle

cted

Ther

mos

tat E

quiv

alen

ts

TRC CT THERMOSTAT COLLECTIONS, 2008-2015

Thermostatequivalentscollected1

Percent ofgeneratedthermostatscollected3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016Pe

rcen

t of

Gen

erat

ed P

aint

Pain

t (ga

llons

)

LATEX AND OIL-BASED PAINT COLLECTED: 2008-2016 Oil-based paintcollected (gallons)

Latex paint collected(gallons)

Percent of generatedleftover paintcollected

Source: Product Stewardship Institute for CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

11 Source: PaintCare Annual Reports

DOES EPR INCREASE RECOVERY? PAINT EXAMPLE

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

California Connecticut Minnesota Oregon Vermont

GA

LLO

NS

PAINT COLLECTED PRE- AND POST-EPR

Pre-EPR (gallons)

Post-EPR (gallons)

2016 (gallons)

Post-EPR = first full year of data after EPR implementation Note that in 2016 some total collections decreased slightly, but sales were also lower and so the recovery rate may have increased.

12 © RRS 2017

DOES EPR SAVE GOVERNMENT MONEY? CT EXAMPLE

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 FY 2014 FY 2015

TOTAL STATE & LOCAL GOV’T PAINT MANAGEMENT COSTS DEEPadministrativecosts

Cost to MunicipalTransfer Stations(latex+oil)

Cost to PermanentHHW Sites (oilonly)

Cost of Events (oilonly)

Disposal Cost forNon-Accounted forLatex

Source: Product Stewardship Institute for CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

KEY ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL EPR PROGRAMS

13

• Convenient collection • Dedicated funding streams • Clear responsibility & accountability • Performance standards (convenience

or “rates & dates”) • Incentives • Oversight & enforcement

© RRS 2017

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS

14

• Transparency / reporting requirements

• Environmental management standards

• Disposal bans • Education & outreach

© RRS 2017

15 © RRS 2017

DOES EPR INCREASE RECOVERY? E-SCRAP EXAMPLE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

LBS/

CA

PITA

PER CAPITA E-WASTE COLLECTION, 2015

*State has an e-waste landfill ban **Data is for a different year (Delaware 2016, Kansas 2013, South Dakota 2011)

Source: ERCC (EPR States); State websites (non EPR states)

Note: This chart presents available data on program performance, but does not provide an “apples to apples” comparison as the covered products and entities (e.g., residents, businesses, schools, etc.) vary from state to state.

Structured EPR Less structured EPR Non-EPR

EPR CHALLENGES: CHANGING ROLES

16

• Appropriate roles for state and local governments

• Proper balance of responsibility & authority

© RRS 2017

DRIVERS FOR EPR MOVING FORWARD

17

• Government budget challenges continue

• Market challenges / export restrictions hamper growth in recovery

• Circular economy capturing attention of business leaders

© RRS 2017

SENIOR CONSULTANT 518.610.8095 RESA@RECYCLE.COM

RESA DIMINO

18 © RRS 2017