NWPSC Strategies • Steering Committee – all governments • Strategies • Speak with a united, well-informed voice (EPR Think Tank) • Education, communication and stakeholder engagement • Pilots of key significance • Providing delegates to national dialogues (PSI) and comment on national activities • Policy development and legislation • Coordination/sharing with other Councils (PPI)
Identified local need to prepare for e-waste tsunami Participated in National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative Wanted convenient widespread collections – far more than what government could provide or finance “As easy to recycle as it is to buy” Created in partnership with retailers, charities, environmental groups and local governments Successful take back program spurred passage of Washington state electronic waste law in 2006 Take It Back Network
Washington and Oregon’s EPR E-waste Laws • 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 • Covered Products - computers, computer monitors, laptop computers and televisions • Geographic “convenience” requirement • Program Implementation Date – January 1, 2009
What This Means for Washington State Washington State • Service in all 39 counties • Service in all cities with population greater than 10,000 • Currently 214 collection sites • New businesses started • New processors establishing in state • First 8 months of operation – over 25.8 Million lbs. • If trend continues then heading for 5.8 lbs per capita per year
What We THOUGHT This Would Mean 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
What It Actually Meant for Snohomish 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!
What This Means for Snohomish County Just in Snohomish County (pop. 680,000) • 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, like libraries • 20,000 small businesses with 50 employees or less
Big Surprise: The Economy Snohomish County • Had to rapidly downsize 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 due to 17 other locations providing collection service in county • Perfect example of EPR providing local government flexibility.
Dangerous Medicine Return Pilot (Pharmacy Take Back Program) PSI National Pharmaceutical Dialogue Legislation
British Columbia’s program: a model • Ongoing program since 1996 • Serves 4 million people • No fee to user • 856 pharmacies participating • User friendly for pharmacy • Pick-up schedule easy and on-demand • Collected 53,000 lbs in 2007 • Total cost $300,000 in 2007
Toxic Take it Back Network (Retailer Program) PSI National Fluorescent Lighting Dialogue Legislation
Wasteful PSI National Paint Dialogue (PPSI) NW Paint Workgroup Legislation
Frustrating …when addressed on a product by product basis!
Don’t Get Frustrated! Get Framework!
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
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?