Paying for Progress: Washington's Strategy to explore Options for Funding Hazardous Waste and Materials Reduction Progr

1. Paying for Progress: Washington's Strategy to explore Options for Funding Hazardous Waste and Materials Reduction Programs www.ecy.wa.gov/beyondwaste NAHMMA Conference September 23, 2005 Cheryl Smith Washington State Department of Ecology

2. Washington’s MRW System • Every county is required to collect HHW • 24 counties also collect some small quantity (SQG) hazardous wastes from businesses • 51 fixed facilities in 32 of 39 counties • Numerous collection events are also held each year

3. What’s Working Well? • Costs per participant are decreasing • Fixed facilities have increased and the collection system is fairly stable • A large portion of what is collected goes to recycling and burning for energy • Significant volumes of hazardous wastes are neutralized or otherwise treated to be less problematic when landfilled • Collection infrastructure and some funding is in place • Consumers and businesses are better informed

4. 2003 MRW Collection Data HHW: • 8.9% of households participated • 16% of HHW (estimated) SQG: • Unknown % of SQG participated • 1% of SQG waste (estimated) Totals • 29 million lbs collected • 41% used oil (by weight) • 35% paint (by weight)

5. MRW Program Costs In 2003, more than $15 million was spent on MRW by counties and cities in Washington …to capture 16% (give or take) of HHW Then, it could (theoretically) take $93 million to get it all….

6. Troubling Trends • Most HHW and SQG waste is still disposed • Much HHW and SQG waste is disposed in ways that could have impacts on human health and the environment (sewer system, stormwater, etc) • Unclear if the goal of preventing further cleanup sites is being met… • Funds are limited, and when tied to disposal, they will decrease as we are more successful

7. Troubling Trends Cont’d • Most of what is collected is paint—which is less problematic than many wastes, can be reused, and is not handled by the experts (in most places) • Collection of haz waste does not eliminate exposure in other phases of the life cycle-use, handling, mfg, transporting • Lack of signals/incentives for changes in product design

8. What Results Do We Want? • Beyond Waste lays out long-term goals for MRW • Safer Products and Services • Efficient Materials Management • Greater Economic Vitality

9. We can transition to a society where wastes are viewed as inefficient and where most wastes and toxic substances have been eliminated. This will contribute to environmental, economic and social vitality. The Beyond Waste Vision

10. For the Short-term • Need short-term funding options with an eye toward long-term needs • Short-term: Consider separating disposal and non-disposal costs: Spread non-disposal costs throughout the base, not just tie them to disposal fees • Consider capturing some costs (including fixed costs for infrastructure) from SQGs if you have capacity to handle the volume…

11. Types of Financing Mechanisms/Tools • Taxes—Generally used to advance general govt programs, and not necessarily associated with a specific benefit • Fees---Generally associated with payment for some identifiable benefit received

12. Fees & Taxes Used in Wash. • Cost-of-service based rates • Other volume-based rates • Per customer disposal fees • Disposal surcharges • Advance recovery fees • Grants from Model Toxics Control Account Taxes

13. Comparative Criteria for Financing Mechanisms • Financial leveraging • Environmental Benefits • Cost/Benefit relationship • Equity • Administrative Ease • Revenue cost/savings • Revenue Stability • Revenue Size • Actual use • From EPA EFP Guidebook

14. Prince George’s County, Maryland • System Benefit Charge (fee) for non-residential properties • Low, Medium, High Generator Categories • Waste projections in lb/ft2/year • Rate per 100 ft2 • Solid Waste Charge (tax) on property tax bill for residential properties

15. For the long-term • Government can’t afford existing model • Current structure needs to change • Change the social contract—Producers & users should have more responsibility Goals • Generate less! • Highest possible use for what is not eliminated

16. How to pay for progress toward those goals • Ideal: Market signals elicit desired behavior from both businesses and consumers • No need for government intervention • Economic strength for those who heed the signals • Reality: No single formula….real world is complex

17. British Columbia Model • Extended Producer Responsibility System • Recycling Regulation requiring product take-back Vision: …waste management systems are financed and operated by producers and users, rather than by general taxpayers Principles: Producer/user responsibility Level playing field Results-based Transparency & Accountability From BC Industry Product Stewardship Business Plan 2002/3-2004/5

18. Product Stewardship: Responsibility for minimizing a product’s environmental impact through all stages of its life cycle rests with whoever designs, produces, sells and uses the product From NWPSCwww.productstewardship.net

19. British Columbia Cont’d • Product Care Association (TPO) handles: • Paints • Solvents/Flammable liquids • Pesticides • Gasolines • Funded by eco fees paid by industry “brand owners” • Eco fees based on unit sales (25¢/liter of paint)

20. British Columbia Cont’d • Medications return program • Used oil, filters & containers (BC Used Oil Mgmnt Assoc) Govt administers: Lead-acid batteries--$5 levy Tires--$3 levy www.bc.ca/epd

21. Beyond Waste Funding Criteria • Use incentives to influence behaviors • Protect against future cleanups • Fair and practical to implement • Flexible enough to address changing conditions • Support high environmental standards • Provide feedback to mfrs about product design

22. Beyond Waste Next Steps • Evaluate future funding needs • Incorporate complete cost and benefit models into solid waste system decisions • Promote all facets of product stewardship • Maintain incentives that encourage more sustainable behaviors