Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04272010 - C.19APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2010 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: LEA CASTLEBERRY, 820-8683 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2010 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: KATHERINE SINCLAIR, Deputy cc: C.19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Date:April 27, 2010 Contra Costa County Subject:SUPPORT OF EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers:  Tracy Bauer, Sustainable Contra Costa; Lois Corchaine, California Product Steward Council (CPSC); Tina King Neuhausel, Director, Sustainable Contra Costa; Curtis Swanson, Contra Costa Central Sanitary District.  ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2010/225 Background Brochure Local Gov't Brochure Ten Reasons for EPR and not ADF's Who is CPSC Rev 3/10 BACKGROUND ON EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY March 2010 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that approximately 75 percent of today’s waste stream comes from manufactured products – from common household items such as televisions, cell phones, personal computers, fluorescent lights and batteries to household hazardous waste products like paint and pesticides. Electronics contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic heavy metals that pose a threat to public health and the environment when improperly disposed. Other products also contain toxic constituents, such as the mercury contained in fluorescent lights, or are packaged with problematic materials and excessive packaging. Still other products, such as hypodermic needles and other “Sharps” can injure the public and sanitation workers when improperly disposed. In response to legitimate environmental concerns about the landfilling of such products, California has enacted landfill bans. In 2006, “Universal Waste” (fluorescent lights, household batteries, electronics, mercury switches, etc.) were banned from landfilling. In 2008, “Sharps” were banned from landfilling. Because of growing concerns about the presence of prescription and non-prescription drug residues in our waterways, it is anticipated that pharmaceutical waste will likely be banned from landfill disposal in the near future. However well-intended the disposal bans are, the responsibility for enforcing these bans has been placed on cash-strapped local governments, which lack the funding, capacity or resources to properly manage the growing list of products banned from landfills. This is an unfunded mandate and the result is a “ban without a plan.” Under today’s waste management system, the responsibility for managing the end-of-life (EOL) of these product wastes falls on local governments. Many products today are actually designed for disposal, rather than reuse or recycling. It is both the toxicity of the waste stream and the volume of waste that is of concern to local governments. Ratepayers and taxpayers are financing costly collection infrastructure and programs which, in effect, amount to a subsidy for the product manufacturers. Residents of Contra Costa County are calling for “free” and convenient disposal options for these common products that can no longer be landfilled, but the our municpalities simply cannot afford to provide broader services. Statistics vary, but it is estimated that the statewide percentage of households using local government-sponsored Household Hazardous waste programs is no more than 5 percent. 1 This means that approximately 95% of the residentially-generated household hazardous waste in California is unaccounted for. Clearly, the current system is not working and local governments cannot afford to offer expanded services. EPR offers a solution by engaging producers in the lifecycle management of their products. EPR recognizes that all stakeholders share some responsibility, but the producer has the greatest 1 Based on conversations with Dept. of Toxic Substance Control staff and Annual Form 303 Reports Rev 3/10 responsibility because only producers can change the design of products. EPR does not stipulate how producers must take responsibility, but rather that they must. This gives producers the flexibility to design programs that work for their product and business model. Producers may utilize and fund existing recycling facilities and programs, capitalize on existing distribution networks to create take-back programs that work as “reverse retail” or mail-back systems, or work with other producers to develop product stewardship organizations. Many of the world’s largest businesses already operate in EPR systems elsewhere: Canada, British Columbia, Europe, Japan, Korea, and the Netherlands to name a few. These are the same companies that are not practicing product stewardship in the U.S. because they don’t have to. EPR legislation will create a level playing field. Voluntary take-back programs are not fair and put the “good actors” in a position of having products that are more expensive in a competitive market place. In an EPR system, producers of selected products are required to be stewards of that product at the end of life, which “levels the playing field” as all producers are included and there are no “free riders.” Producers will integrate the EOL cost into the purchase price of the product so that the consumer pays for the EOL cost at the time of purchase. Producers with the most cost-efficient system will have the least expensive product. EPR allows the free-market system to work for recycling, not against it. Finally, EPR will drive better product design. When producers are responsible for the EOL management of their products, there is a financial incentive to design products that have fewer toxic constituents, that are longer lasting, and that encourage recycling and reuse. Businesses do not want to pay for expensive collection programs for hazardous waste any more than local governments do, so if they have to take-it-back, there is an economic feedback system in place that makes them re-think the materials being used. There is widespread support for product stewardship. The California Integrated Waste Management Board adopted EPR “framework” legislation as a strategic goal. The framework concept allows multiple products to be regulated under one law, as opposed to the costly and time consuming product-by-product legislation of the past. The League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) have adopted resolutions and policies that support EPR. More than twenty-five Counties, 65 cities and twenty-two local government associations have joined CPSC, including: the Counties of Alameda, Butte, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin and Santa Clara; the cities of Cupertino, Chula Vista, Elk Grove, Oakland, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, San Jose and Vacaville; and local government associations, including the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Humboldt Waste Management Authority, Monterey Regional Waste Management District, the California Council of Directors of Environmental Health, and the California Storm Water Quality Association. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no direct fiscal impact to Contra Costa County resulting from the adoption of an Extended Producer Responsibility resolution; however, the County stands to gain fiscal relief in the future if EPR policy is passed on a statewide level. This model document was created with funding from a grant from the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Zero waste – you make it happen! Rev 3/10 Ten Compelling Reasons Manufacturers Should Provide Recycling for Their Electronic Products (And why Producer Responsibility is better than an ARF approach) Producer Responsibility means that manufacturers are responsible for financing and arranging the collection and recycling of their products at end-of-life. The cost of the collection and recycling programs would be included in the price of new products rather than funded through taxes, solid waste fees or additional fees at the time products are discarded. 1. Only manufacturers have the ability to design less toxic products. Governments and consumers can’t control product design. That is industry’s job. Electronic products currently contain lead, mercury, brominated flame retardants, and other hazardous substances. When these products are landfilled, incinerated or shipped to developing nations, they pose a very real threat to human health and the environment. A producer-paid recycling program gives manufacturers a financial incentive to decrease their recycling and disposal costs by designing “greener” products. When manufacturers pay to handle toxics from their products at end-of-life, they will design products with fewer toxics. When manufacturers pay to recycle the products they sell, they’ll design products that are easier to dismantle. 2. Producer Responsibility removes the financial burden from local governments. In the past, local governments have been responsible for providing end-of-life management and disposal for all kinds of products. These costs are high due to poor product design - use of toxic substances, complex products that are hard-to-disassemble, etc. The potential value of manufacturer responsibility to local governments across the U.S. is $67 million per year – and that’s just for covering collection costs. Governments simply should not be asked to raise and expend funds to solve a private sector problem. 3. It’s a non-tax solution. Citizens often perceive Advanced Recycling Fees –visible fees collected by government at the point of purchase - as a government tax. With manufacturer responsibility, collection and recycling costs are “internalized” - included in the price of new products - rather than funded through taxes, solid waste fees or additional fees at the time products are discarded. 4. Recycling becomes a cost of doing business. When manufacturers pay to recycle their products, recycling becomes a cost of doing business (just like supplies or salaries or health benefits). The recycling costs will likely be included in the price of the product, and the price will be closer to telling the truth about the environmental cost of the product. 5. Manufacturers will use their business know how and create innovative solutions that work for them. Producer Responsibility harnesses private market forces and private sector ingenuity to develop smart, efficient and effective recycling programs. Manufacturers plan and finance the programs, but are not expected to process the equipment or provide the collection services themselves. Instead, they enter into business-to-business arrangements with businesses and programs, such as private recyclers, charities, haulers, retailers, and government facilities. Producer Responsibility allows flexibility for manufacturers to decide how best to implement the recycling program given their individual business models. It also creates a level playing field, making it easier for manufacturers to do the right thing. 6. Producer Responsibility avoids a big government bureaucracy. By establishing a recycling system entirely planned and paid for by manufacturers, there is no need for state or local governments to set up an expensive bureaucracy for collecting fees or to run and manage programs. State government is responsible for doing what it does best - oversight and enforcement. 2 - 4 state employees will oversee Washington’s new manufacturer responsibility law. On the other hand, California’s Advanced Recycling Fee law creates a big government bureaucracy needing over 60 staff to implement. 7. The private sector will provide more convenient drop-off options. Collection sites that are limited to government transfer stations or hazardous waste facilities are not adequately convenient (and many of those facilities do not have enough space to store computers and TVs). Alternately, manufacturer responsibility systems like the one in Washington will encourage (but not mandate) a diversity of collectors such as large and small retailers, recyclers, and charities as well as government sites. Drop-off will be free and convenient to residents, schools and small businesses, and this will mean larger amounts of equipment collected and recycled. 8. Consumers will pay – but costs will be lower. When manufacturers fund collection and recycling programs, the costs will likely get passed on to the consumer as a small increase in the product’s price. However, market forces and efficiencies in the Producer Responsibility system will drive costs down. The same market forces that result in improved products at lower prices will be applied to the recycling of those products. Customers will pay less than they do now to recycle a TV or computer. 9. Manufacturers already provide green design and recycling in Europe. Manufacturer responsibility for electronics has already taken hold in Europe and Japan, and manufacturers are voluntarily developing a system in Canada. The same electronics manufacturers are also selling products to U.S. citizens. We should receive the same level and quality of service as provided elsewhere. 10. Producer Responsibility is better than Advanced Recycling Fees (ARF). • With Advanced Recycling Fees (ARFs), manufacturers have no financial responsibility for the recycling programs. Instead, consumers pay a fee to the retailer when they buy a product. The retailers then pass the money along to the state government, which uses it to pay for the recycling programs. The manufacturers are off the hook. • The ARF system does not provide an incentive for greener product design. Unlike Producer Responsibility, manufacturers do not have any connection to the end of life of their products. They don’t save money as they reduce their use of toxic materials. • ARFs place the entire burden of implementing the program on the state and retailers. Because a fee is charged at retail, the system encourages out-of-state purchases and increases paperwork, hurting local retailers. • ARFs create a large government bureaucracy and complicated fee collection system. California, the only state with an ARF system, hired 60 staff to administer the program. • Fees are set by legislation. If the amount collected is not enough to cover the costs of recycling all products returned, local or state government would likely pay the difference. • Government funds created by ARFs can be easily raided. • Citizens often perceive Advanced Recycling Fees as a government tax. Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation www.WasteNotWashington.org Who is CPSC? Map of CPSC Associated Counties and Cities with EPR Resolutions (2/26/10) Local Government Agencies Participating in CPSC By Pledge or Resolution Counties: Board of Supervisors or Countywide Agency (29) • Alameda* • Amador* • Butte • Calaveras • Del Norte* • Glenn • Humboldt • Kern* • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin* • Mariposa • Mendocino* • Monterey* • Napa* • Nevada • Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Francisco • San Joaquin* • San Mateo • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Solano • Sonoma* • Tehama • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo* * Countywide agency other than Board of Supervisors 1 California State Association of Counties (CSAC) or the Regional Council of Rural Counties’ Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority (ESJPA) Key to Map: County is in a local government association1 that has passed an EPR resolution or policy statement County has individually passed an EPR resolution City has passed an EPR resolution California Product Stewardship Council Cit y & Town Councils (65) • Albany • Amador City • Arcata • Arvin • Belmont • Burbank • Calabasas • Chula Vista • Corning • Cupertino • Diamond Bar • Dixon • Dublin • El Cerrito • Elk Grove • Eureka • Folsom • Fortuna • Fresno • Glendale • Hillsborough • Indian Wells • Larkspur • La Quinta • La Verne • Lemon Grove • Lincoln • Los Altos Hills • Los Angeles • Los Gatos • Millbrae • Monrovia • Monte Sereno • Morgan Hill • Mountain View • Napa • Nevada City • Oakland • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Palo Alto • Paradise • Pasadena • Petaluma • Pittsburg • Rio Vista • Rohnert Park • Sacramento • San Dimas • San Joaquin • San Jose • San Juan Capistrano • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Santa Monica • Sierra Madre • Sunnyvale • Torrance • Union City • Vacaville • Vernon • Walnut Creek • West Hollywood • West Sacramento • Winters Local Government Associations (25) • Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)  Bay Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility Allocation Committee  San Francisco Estuary Project • Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies • California Council of Directors of Environmental Health (CCDEH) • California State Association of Counties • California Stormwater Quality Association • Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority • Coachella Valley Assoiation of Governments • Contra Costa Clean Water Program • Delta Diablo Sanitation District • East Bay Municipal Utility District • Fresno Council of Governments • League of California Cities • Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force • Los Angeles County Sanitation District • Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority • Rural Counties’ Environmental Services JPA (ESJPA) • Sacramento Business Environmental Resource Center • Sacramento County Dept. of Water Resources • Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District • Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission • Santa Clara Valley, CLEAN South Bay • South Bayside WMA • Southern California Assoc. of Governments • Tamalpais Community Services District • West Valley Clean Water (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga) Partners (57) • A Green Plan • Aces Waste Services • Allied Waste, Daly City • Amador Disposal • Amazon Environmental, Inc. • California Resource Connections Inc. • Clean Water Action • California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA) • Clean Water Action • CR&R Waste and Recycling Services • Curbside, Inc. • Ecology Action • EcoMom Alliance • Edgar and Associates • Environmental Alternatives Consulting • Environmental Innovations • Executive Communications • General Environmental Management, Inc. • Gill’s Onions • Going Green Radio Program • Grassroots Recycling Network • Green Party of Los Angeles County • Greenleaf Project Management • I2I Industry to Innovation • Johnson’s Environmental Products, Inc. • Keep California Beautiful • L2 Environmental • Long Beach Coalition for a Safe Environment • Main Street Moms • Marin Sanitary Service • MKM Environmental • North Bay Corporation • Pacific Recycling Solutions • Peninsula Packaging • Product Policy Institute • PSC Environmental Services • Republic Industries • ReUse Arizona • Reverse Logistics Association • Sierra Club – Bay Area • Sierra Club – Napa • Sierra Club – Solano • Sierra Club – Zero Waste Committee • SLV Recycling Redemption Centers • State Agency Recycling Coordinator’s Committee • Supply Brothers, Inc. • Sustainable San Rafael • Takayama Consulting • TDC Environmental • Teleosis Institute • The Altum Group • The JBC Groups, LLC • The Watershed Project • Total Recycling Associates • Waste Management of Orange County • YCC International • Yuba Environmental Science Charter Academy P.O. Box 216381 Sacramento, CA 95821 www.CalPSC.org Doing Well by Doing Good þ Design it Green Be a leader in innovation. Eliminate inefficiencies. Foster company pride and consumer loyalty. þ Use Non-Toxic Materials Eliminate the health, safety and liability concerns that come with using hazardous materials. þ Make it Clean Reduce operating costs by using manufacturing facilities and production methods that reduce waste, air and water pollution. þ Encourage Reuse Reuse is the most efficient way for businesses to reduce solid waste, energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. þ Conserve Resources Use recycled-content materials in products and packaging. Virgin materials are sometimes more expensive and take a heavy environmental toll. You’ll be stimulating the market for recycled-content products. þ Offer the Product as a Service Consider leasing instead of selling your product. Many consumers, especially buyers for business and government, would prefer to lease rather than buy. Taking back your product at the end of the lease may give you a competitive edge. þ Take it Back! Develop convenient take-back programs for your products at their end-of-life. Your customers will thank you and you’ll develop brand loyalty. California Product Stewardship Council Let’s Do Something About It Greening the Bottom Line Heidi Sanborn, Executive Director Phone: 916-480-9010 Email: info@CalPSC.org Product Stewardship and Your Business Who is CPSC? The California Product Stewardship Council is a coalition of local governments and their associations, non-profit and for-profit business partners and individuals that support product stewardship. CPSC is a federally recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Check us out at http://www.CalPSC.org • Subscribe to our Stakeholder’s electronic newsletter: http://www.calpsc.org/getinvolved/subscribe.html • Join CPSC as a Business Partner: http://www.calpsc.org/about/partners.html This brochure was funded in part by a grant from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and from the California Department of Conservation. Developed with support from the County of San Joaquin and The Product Policy Institute. “We are partnering with a recycling company to “close the loop” so our products can be recycled in California indefinitely and create green jobs at the same time.” —Ed Byrne, Owner and General Manager Peninsula Packaging, Exeter, CA © Copyright 2010 by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced without permission from CalRecycle. Printed on 100% recycled, 50% post consumer waste, chlorine-free paper with vegetable inks. Greening the Bottom Line Can you imagine passing on a lucrative business deal? Do you ever offer to pay more than the asking price? Do you negotiate deals that are in the other party’s best interest? Of course not! Are you throwing away profits? Absolutely not! Are you sure about that? Approximately 75%* of our waste stream is product and packaging waste. In California alone, we landfill approximately 40 million tons** of waste each year. Resources are being destroyed that could benefit your business either as feedstock or as a marketable commodity. We don’t typically consider “waste” a resource, but smart businesses are taking back their products through reverse distribution systems and using those materials to make new products and avoiding the cost of buying virgin materials. Product stewardship offers many economic benefits: reduced operating costs, creating secondary materials markets, reduced disposal costs, energy savings, and the creation of green jobs. A 2008 independent study of British Columbia’s eight product stewardship programs documented more than 100,000 tons of materials recycled, significant GHG emissions reductions, more than 5 million gigajoules of energy saved, and the creation of 2,100 full time green jobs! Product stewardship encourages green design and creates green jobs Producers make the design and marketing decisions and therefore have the greatest ability to reduce lifecycle impact. Are We Burying Profits? Businesses are $eeing Green Producer Responsibility: It’s Just Good Business Internalize Costs Managing products at the end of their lifecycle has a cost. Today, the costs are borne by taxpayers and garbage ratepayers. In an EPR system, producers internalize the EOL costs in the product price. The cost is then reflected to the consumer at the time of purchase, sending the appropriate market signals and allowing consumers to make purchasing decisions based on the full cost of the product. The consumer who purchases the product pays for its end of life costs and producers are made whole by recouping the cost of their investment. Level the Playing Field Voluntary EPR programs are a good start, but they put businesses at a competitive disadvantage in a price- sensitive marketplace, where the smallest price increase can result in lost sales. Legislating a statewide EPR program for products and What is EPR? Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), also called product stewardship, means being responsible for all phases of a product’s lifecycle – from design to end-of-life (EOL). Because reuse and recycling are emphasized, this type of system is referred to as “cradle-to- cradle” rather than “cradle-to-grave.” EPR places primary responsibility for product EOL management with the producer. Who are Producers? Producers are the companies that manufacture, are the brand owners or first-importers of products for sale in the U.S. — companies like Dell, HP, and Honeywell. packaging levels the playing field. EPR policy ensures that no company is at a disadvantage for “doing good.” Create Customer Loyalty Companies like LG Electronics, Bentley Prince Street, Inc., Honeywell, Sony and Caterpillar already offer EPR programs because it’s good customer service and it’s the right thing to do. “Green” is definitely in. Consumers want products that are less toxic, made from recycled materials, easily reused and repaired, shipped with less packaging, and are easy to recycle. EPR Is Not a New Concept EPR systems operate in Canada, Japan, South Korea and the European Union. In fact, many of the same companies that sell products here already operate in EPR systems abroad. How EPR Works It’s simple, really. Producers implement recycling systems for the products they market. For example, companies that produce fluorescent lights would design, fund and operate a recycling system for fluorescent lights. Take it Back Producers have the flexibility and control to design EPR systems that work for each unique business model. Producers design, fund and operate the collection systems. They can do this individually, or by working together with other companies in a stewardship organization. One producer may design a mail-back program for their product. Others may establish retail collection points like the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation has done with retailers that sell rechargeable batteries. Most producers will use existing reuse and recycling programs. Design it Green Green design is part of product stewardship. Producers are redesigning products to remove toxics and to make them more durable, easily repairable, recyclable or compostable, and are applying the same principles to packaging. Green design is efficient, saves resources and money. * Source: Unintended Consequences, Product Policy Institute, 2005. See Page 7, Figure 3. The data are published by USEPA as noted in this report. ** Source: CIWMB, http://ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/ “Retailers support EPR as a more workable and cost-effective alternative to mandatory in-store take back or point of sale fees.” —Pamela Williams, California Retailer’s Association The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, operated and funded by rechargeable battery manufacturers, sponsors a free rechargeable battery recycling program. Most of the companies that make this stuff aren’t paying a nickel to recycle it. In fact, they designed it for disposal— and you’re picking up the tab! We think it’s time to change that. To further reduce product and packaging waste and toxicity, we must further motivate designers, manufacturers and brand owners to design for increasing recycling and recovery. Product stewardship programs have already been implemented in Europe and Canada with many of the same companies now selling products in California, so we know it can be done here as well. * Source: Unintended Consequences, Product Policy Institute, 2005. See Page 7, Figure 3. The data are published by USEPA as noted in this report. ** Source: CIWMB, http://ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/ Heidi Sanborn, Executive Director Phone: 916-480-9010 Email: info@CalPSC.org Producer Responsibility Pass resolutions, ordinances, plans and policies Use model producer responsibility plans and policies from our website. Advocate for statewide legislation Add producer responsibility to whatever advocacy efforts your jurisdiction is pursuing in Sacramento. Join CPSC Participate in CPSC and help us speak with a unified voice in California. There IS power in numbers. 1 2 3 Waste Generation & Recovery Are Changing Product Stewardship Why Local Governments Want A Better Way Join Us! Help Make a Reality in CaliforniaA century ago, when local governments assumed responsibility for solid waste, it consisted mostly of coal ash left over from heating and cooking. The rest was mainly food, with a small amount of simple manufactured products like paper and glass. P.O. Box 216381 Sacramento, CA 95821 www.CalPSC.org Today, manufactured products and associated packaging make up 75% of what we discard*. 1900: NYC 1960: USA 2000: USA Mineral Food/Yard Products Recovered LandfilledMillion tons per year1990 2007 50 40 30 20 10 0 The volume of waste disposed in landfills is about the same as in 1990: approximately 40 million tons**. Since the 1980s, California’s reuse, recycling and composting industries have grown explosively. Thousands of California businesses are recycling valuable resources back into productive commerce, so that today, about half of the materials discarded in California get recovered. Though this is a huge achievement, due to population growth and the expanding quantity of packaging and product waste, the amount of waste going to landfills isn’t reducing — in fact... Developed with support from The Product Policy Institute. This brochure was funded in part by a grant from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). © Copyright 2010 by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced without permission from CalRecycle. Printed on 100% recycled, 50% post consumer waste, chlorine-free paper with vegetable inks. The cost of collecting, recycling and disposing of hazardous products easily exceeds $500 million* a year in California. *source: CIWMB Manufactured product discards should be managed by producers or their agents. Local governments and private recyclers could then focus more on fostering opportunities to expand reuse, composting and recovery of recyclable materials and other beneficial uses. Tomorrow’s “Cradle to Cradle” System Tomorrow’s system will engage producers to drive green design through every stage in a product’s life cycle: from “cradle to cradle.” Everyone will share in the responsibility for the products they create, sell, use and discard. The Producer Responsibility movement is growing: Local governments throughout the U.S. are beginning to • implement EPR programs and policies. Some manufacturers and retailers in the U.S. have started • to implement EPR. In fact, many manufacturers are already practicing EPR in other countries... the same manufacturers that aren’t doing it here! California Retailers Association, Clean Seas Coalition, California • Stormwater Quality Association, California Council of Directors of Environmental Health, California Resource Recovery Association and many more support EPR. Batteries, sharps, electric switches, cell phones, electronic equipment, computer monitors, aerosol cans, fluorescent light tubes, compact fluorescent lights, thermometers, treated lumber... and pharmaceuticals are expected to be banned soon. Disposal bans without plans do not work: Bans DO NOT reduce volume, toxicity or • illegal disposal of the wastes. Bans DO NOT create safe and convenient • collection and recycling options. Bans DO put the burden of enforcement on local governments.• Bans DO put the burden of cost on ratepayers and taxpayers.• Local governments try to enforce the state mandated bans, but they don’t have the money to do it. It’s the classic unfunded mandate—a government directive without the resources to implement it. The intentions of the bans are good, but the responsibility is misplaced on local governments. The Solution: Producer Responsibility We currently operate under two separate systems. The front-end system designs, manufactures and sells products to us and then effectively rides off into the sunset. The back-end system is engaged once the consumer is done with those products. Local governments become financially responsible for managing the disposal of these private goods, many of which are toxic and disposable by design. These two systems don’t communicate with each other. Manufac- turers don’t have to design products to be nontoxic or recyclable, or design systems to safely dispose of them at the end of their usefulness. And local governments don’t have any input into how toxic or durable the products are; but they still get stuck with the disposal bill. Today’s Linear Product Flow — Production to Disposal A Better Way: Producer Responsibility Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), or Product Stewardship, means whoever designs, produces, sells or uses a product takes responsibility for minimizing its environmental impact through all stages of the product’s life cycle. And the producer, having the greatest ability to minimize impacts, has the most responsibility. When government makes stewardship programs mandatory, it levels the playing field for businesses so they can compete in a fair marketplace. Today, products are regulated one category at a time (e-waste, pesticides, etc.). A better approach, an “EPR framework,” provides one law that adopts EPR principles for all products and gives regulators the authority to implement rules that make sense for each product. Implement Producer Responsibility Solid waste• Hazardous waste• Resource depletion• Disposal Bans Are an Unfunded Mandate The List of Products Banned from Landfilling is Long Two Systems. No Communication. EPR Addresses Multiple Issues Wastewater• Public health• Energy usage• Stormwater• Ocean litter• Climate change• The Problem: $500,000,000 Manufacturers Retailers Consumers Recycle & Garbage Bins Local Government Funded Recycling & Landfill Processes Producers make products for sale & contract with stewardship organization Retailers Consumers Materials are recycled into new products Take Back Programs: mail-back, collection sites, haulers, local governments