Policy Tools Driving Post- Consumer Packaging and Printed Paper - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Welcome to the Webinar: Policy Tools Driving Post- Consumer Packaging and Printed Paper Recovery July 23, 2014

Peder Sandhei Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Elisabeth Comere Carton Council & Tetra Pak Inc. Scott Mouw North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Betsy Dorn Reclay StewardEdge James Short Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 2 2

But first…Who is the Carton Council? Carton manufacturers united to deliver long term collaborative solutions to divert valuable cartons from disposal Associate Member 3 3

Our Comprehensive Approach Improving Policy: State Access: and Local End markets, Levels Processing and Collection Improving Recycling in the U.S. Education Industry to Improve Collaboration Recovery 4 4

No Silver Bullet – Policy is Only a Piece of the Puzzle 5 5

Why this Webinar?  Carton Council has achieved 50% access however more work is needed.  Exploring policy’s role as tool for building access AND recovery.  Purpose of the webinar is to share learnings to date and hear others’ perspectives.  Webinar will be followed by release of full report and half-day forum at Resource Recycling Conference in September in New Orleans. 6 6

Webinar Agenda I. Overview of Carton Council Research II. NC Disposal Bans: Giving Recycling a Boost III. Implementing Delaware’s Universal Recycling Program and Lessons Learned IV. Volume Based Pricing and the New Commercial Recycling Mandate in Minnesota V. Wrap Up and Q&A 7 7

Overview of Carton Council Policy Research National research covering all post-consumer packaging and printed paper materials conducted by Reclay StewardEdge Focused on state and local level policy and related programs:  o Recycling laws o Disposal bans o Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) Primary and secondary research including:  o Literature review o Review of past studies o Internet research o Interviews 8 8

Research Findings  State-level disposal bans in 4 states  Three types of recycling policies in 18 states  PAYT policies in 5 states  Numerous local governments employing policy tools – with or without overarching state policy 9 9

Disposal Bans & Recycling Policies by State S T S T D S T P P T S D S T P P P D T S P T P S S P P T S S T S T T P D T Policy Type S Service Provision/Level P Participation/Source Separation T Target/Goal D Disposal Ban 10 10

State-Level Packaging & Paper Disposal Bans Jurisdiction Glass Steel Aluminum Plastic Paper (a) Massachusetts Containers Containers Containers 1-6 Bottles OCC, RP North Carolina Containers (b) Containers 1-7 Bottles Vermont Containers Containers Containers 1-2 Bottles OCC, RP Wisconsin Containers Containers Containers 1-2 Bottles OCC, ONP, OMG, OP Notes: (a) OCC=old corrugated containers, ONP=newspaper, OMG=magazines, OP=office paper, RP=all recyclable paper (b) Applies only to certain restaurants and bars with alcohol permits 11 11

Types of Recycling Policies 1. Recycling Service Provision : o Local governments/haulers expected to provide specified recycling services based on defined criteria • e.g. population greater than 4,000 or by generator type 2. Recycling Participation/Source Separation : o Requires source separation of recyclables by all or certain types of generators • e.g. single-family, multi-family, commercial 3. Recycling Target/Goal : o Local governments/state agencies expected to achieve specified target or goal • e.g. 50% recycling rate or diversion rate by X year 12 12

State Level Recycling Policies Jurisdiction Service Participation/Source Target/ Provision/Level Separation Goal Material Not Material Material Not Material Specific Specific Specific Specific California   Connecticut   Delaware    Florida  Maine   Maryland   Minnesota   New Jersey    New York  North  Carolina Oregon   Pennsylvania    Rhode Island    Vermont    Virginia  Washington   West Virginia   13 13 Wisconsin  

Disposal Bans and Recycling Policies: Conclusions  State policy can drive local policy and infrastructure development.  Recycling policies are preferred by states over disposal bans. Emphasis for bans has been voluntary compliance with threat  of enforcement in background.  Three types of recycling policies equally prevalent and often used in combination.  State and local policies involve local implementation and behavior change.  States generally expect local governments and/or haulers to implement and enforce. 14 14

Disposal Bans and Recycling Policies: Best Practices Employ program tools to support policies.  Combine policies and programs for synergistic impact.  Require use of recycling program best practices.  Provide funding, particularly for initial compliance.  Phase in compliance to allow for infrastructure development, public  awareness and transition time. Use “supportive” enforcement involving monitoring, feedback and  technical assistance, with penalties as a last resort. Clearly define compliance points and mechanisms.  Require data to benchmark and track performance.  Identify champions and cultivate stakeholder support.  15 15

Types of PAYT Programs Can/Cart : Generators pay fixed price based on size  or number of containers they select, e.g. 30, 64 or 96 gallons. Bag, Tag & Sticker : Generators buy special bags or  stickers for their waste. Price of each bag/ sticker includes cost of collection services. Hybrid : Generators pay fixed amount for specified  maximum volume of waste per collection day. Excess waste accrues additional charge. Weight-based : Weight of container contents is  determined at curbside. Generators are charged accordingly. Other : Generators are offered a PAYT fee structure  as a voluntary option. 16 16

States with PAYT Policies State PAYT Policies Local governments that charge for solid waste collection must implement a fee structure that increases as the volume or weight of waste collected from each Minnesota generator's residence or place of business increases. Applies mostly to private collectors that operate in unincorporated areas. Does not apply to local governments; however, the law’s existence has led to PAYT throughout Washington the state. No legislative mandate, but PAYT is on list of nine recycling elements that municipalities choose from when designing their recycling programs to comply with Oregon state regulations. Iowa PAYT at the local level can be required if recycling goals are not met. Wisconsin PAYT at the local level can be required if recycling goals are not met. 17 17

State-Level PAYT: Conclusions State policies can drive local recycling program performance  and provide non-tax source of funding. States historically have refrained from dictating means by  which local governments fund their solid waste services. States can promote PAYT, provide technical assistance, offer  incentives, and fund implementation – with/without requiring PAYT. Example: MA DEP sets best or minimum infrastructure and services standards regarding PAYT and specific pounds per household levels. If municipalities achieve those standards, they are eligible for a specific $/ton diverted incentive payment. 40% of MA communities have PAYT. 18 18

State-Level PAYT: Best Practices 1. Require PAYT to be paired with recycling service provision with costs imbedded in waste collection fee. 2. State policy language should specify:  Recyclable materials to be collected  Minimum frequency of collection  Container sizes and fee setting expectations with sufficient spread in size and pricing  Who is responsible for public education about PAYT and recycling options  Reporting requirements 19 19

PAYT Best Practices: Local Level Conduct extensive customer and service provider education  and outreach. Incorporate cost of recycling in the waste collection fee.  Develop recycling programs with convenience equal to that of  disposal. Ensure pricing increments and container sizes are different  enough to impact behavior change. Inspect hauler records.  Adjust pricing over time to ensure stable financing.  Provide sufficient staff to oversee PAYT program.  20 20

Conclusions: Future Policy Decision Making Collect a wide range of recyclable materials (and increasingly organics) High- performing Provide waste Are supported by municipal generators with policies and funding for convenient access infrastructure recycling development and to to recycling programs incentivize participation opportunities Have strong recycling promotion programs 21 21

Conclusions: Future Policy Decision Making Local Circumstances Dictate Best Policy Approach Existing Policy: EPR, deposit, mandates, bans, PAYT Political Recovery Climate: Infra- Legislative structure initiatives, stakeholder & Access positions Available Funding Mechanisms & Programs 22 22

Looking Ahead: Future Policy Decision Making  Trending practice is multi-faceted programmatic and policy approach with Universal Recycling as the centerpiece – opportunities to recycle everywhere o Examples: Vermont, Seattle, San Francisco 23 23