Waaay Extended Producer Responsibility

Here’s an editorial from Resource Recycling magazine for December 2009, by Jerry Powell, that explains how Extended Producer Responsibility works and why it’s a great idea. To learn more about EPR, check out the Product Policy Institute.

Do Americans need to look north?

As a magazine editor for nearly 30 years, I am
continually intrigued with what are recycling’s
hottest topics at any given point. On far too
many occasions, what intrigues me doesn’t seem
to resonate as strongly with others in the
industry. The most recent example is a brand
new term in municipal recycling collection and
processing: full EPR. Let me explain on this page
what this is and why it should be among recycling’s
hottest issues.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a
management system for obsolete, recoverable
products. In this scheme, the makers of these
products have a financial and managerial
responsibility to get the used items collected,
processed and recycled. EPR is typically put
into place through legislation. The most
widely known EPR systems are those now
approved in about 20 states, and nearly
every Canadian province, for the recycling
of selected electronics, such as computers,
televisions and monitors.
Over half of Americans (55.1 percent) now live
in states that have adopted the EPR approach for
electronics. In this programs, such producers as
Dell, Hewlett Packard, Sony and Panasonic must
establish and maintain a recovery system in the
state or province.
EPR is an approach that is being expanded quickly
to other materials as well. For example, my home
state of Oregon is the first state to use this
concept for the recovery of post-consumer
architectural paint.
Even with the rising interest, EPR has been limited
to fairly small portions of the waste stream, and
often to those portions that are hard to handle and
recover (e.g., pharmaceuticals, paint, light bulbs,
carpet, etc.). EPR in the U.S. doesn’t target
common residential recyclables, such as paper, metals
and plastics. Can it?
The answer is yes, given the experience in several
Canadian provinces, where the makers of the things
that end up in the residential recycling stream
(think Coke, Heinz, Procter & Gamble, etc.) must
pay a portion of the local-government costs of
collecting and processing these materials.
For example, half the cost of the massive resi-
dential recycling system in Ontario is funded
by these companies. In addition, these pro-
ducers – called stewards – have put up $40 mil-
lion ($Cn) to fund localrecovery system improve-
ments, so that residents are provided cost-
effective and efficient recycling service. I
happen to sit on an advisory body that develops
policies for the distribution of those funds.
And now, the Ontario Minister of the Environment
has decreed that the stewards will soon be required
to fund all of the costs of curbside recycling.
Yes, all.
In a few years, local governments will be reim-
bursed for the costs of collecting and handling
recyclables. One of municipal recycling’s greatest
barriers is that it costs money. City and county
leaders are reluctant to spend more on recycling
when they are being pressured to buy new fire
trucks, repair school buildings, fix roads and
aid the poor. Full EPR, as it’s called in
Ontario, provides a way to address this funding
problem.
And, I’m surprised that full EPR for residential
recycling has not received more attention among
recycling’s most fervent advocates. You would
think that governmental recycling officials
would be very interested in taking a long, hard
look at this option.

Do Americans need to look north?
Resource Recycling
Jerry Powell
December 2009
Editorial Perspective

As a magazine editor for nearly 30 years, I am continually intrigued
with what are recycling’s hottest topics at any given point. On far
too many occasions, what intrigues me doesn’t seem to resonate as
strongly with others in the industry.
The most recent example is a brand new term in municipal recycling
collection and processing: full EPR. Let me explain on this page what
this is and why it should be among recycling’s hottest issues.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a management system for
obsolete, recoverable products. In this scheme, the makers of these
products have a financial and managerial responsibility to get the
used items collected, processed and recycled. EPR is typically put
into place through legislation.
The most widely known EPR systems are those now approved in about 20
states, and nearly every Canadian province, for the recycling of
selected electronics, such as computers, televisions and monitors.
Over half of Americans (55.1 percent) now live in states that have
adopted the EPR approach for electronics. In this programs, such
producers as Dell, Hewlett Packard, Sony and Panasonic must establish
and maintain a recovery system in the state or province.
EPR is an approach that is being expanded quickly to other materials
as well. For example, my home state of Oregon is the first state to
use this concept for the recovery of post-consumer architectural
paint.
Even with the rising interest, EPR has been limited to fairly small
portions of the waste stream, and often to those portions that are
hard to handle and recover (e.g., pharmaceuticals, paint, light bulbs,
carpet, etc.). EPR in the U.S. doesn’t target common residential
recyclables, such as paper, metals and plastics. Can it?
The answer is yes, given the experience in several Canadian provinces,
where the makers of the things that end up in the residential
recycling stream (think Coke, Heinz, Procter & Gamble, etc.) must pay
a portion of the local-government costs of collecting and processing
these materials.
For example, half the cost of the massive residential recycling system
in Ontario is funded by these companies. In addition, these producers
– called stewards – have put up $40 million ($Cn) to fund local
recovery system improvements, so that residents are provided cost-
effective and efficient recycling service. I happen to sit on an
advisory body that develops policies for the distribution of those
funds.
And now, the Ontario Minister of the Environment has decreed that the
stewards will soon be required to fund all of the costs of curbside
recycling.   Yes, all. In a few years, local governments will be
reimbursed for the costs of collecting and handling recyclables.
One of municipal recycling’s greatest barriers is that it costs money.
City and county leaders are reluctant to spend more on recycling when
they are being pressured to buy new fire trucks, repair school
buildings, fix roads and aid the poor. Full EPR, as it’s called in
Ontario, provides a way to address this funding problem. And, I’m
surprised that full EPR for residential recycling has not received
more attention among recycling’s most fervent advocates. You would
think that governmental recycling officials would be very interested
in taking a long, hard look at this option.