Increasing Carpet Recovery:Using EPR for Recycling Carpet & More

June 4, 2015

CPSC Board and Organization• 14 Member Board:http://calpsc.org/about-us/meet-the-board-members/

– 5 of 14 are private sector members

• Seat open – Could be local government or private sector –application process – e-mail Heidi@calpsc.org

Sean Bigley, Roseville Chair Doug Kobold, Sacramento Chair County, Vice-Chair

Patty Garbarino, Marin Sanitary Service Gretchen Olsen, StocktonSecretary Treasurer

CPSC Mission – Goals of EPR

To shift California’s product waste management system from one focused on

government funded and ratepayer financed waste diversion to one that relies on producer

responsibility in order to reduce public costs and drive improvements in product design that

promote environmental sustainability.

Gold Partners

• California Refuse Recycling Council• California Resource Recovery Association• Green Cities California• Recology

CPSC Partners (6/4/15)

Platinum Partners

• Edgar Institute• Marin Sanitary Service• Republic Services• UltiMed

CPSC Partners (6/4/15)

Silver Partners• CalRecycle*• Carton Council

Bronze Partners

• Acrylatex• Biologic• Ecology Action • Los Angeles Fiber• Peninsula Packaging Company• Potential Industries Inc.• PSC Environmental Services• South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. • Visions Paint Recycling, Inc.• Zanker Disposal and Recycling

* CalRecycle has not signed the CPSC Pledge, since this would be inappropriate for a State agency, but is a partner and financial supporter of CPSC.

What is CPSC Doing? Education…

California EPR Legislation 2008-2010 – Focus on Toxics

1. Ag Pesticide Containers 2. Recalled Products Take-Back3. Mercury Thermostat4. Green Chemistry5. Paint6. Carpet7. Brake Pads8. Mattresses - 2013

The Governor calls AB 1879 “the most comprehensive Green Chemistry program ever established” and added that it “puts an end to the less effective chemical-by-chemical ban of the past.”

But Are They Meeting the Goals?

Objective 1

Assess public attitude, consumer motivation and consumer knowledge level

Telephone Survey Focus Groups

Who Should Pay? Question Asked of Focus Group Retailers & Consumers

• Don’t make general taxpayers and ratepayers pay

• Consumers and retailers say producers should be responsible

• Add cost to purchase price

• Want producers to make less toxic products

“If they’re going to be manufacturing these things, they need to be responsible. “ – Retail Focus Group Participant

Driver: Public Wants EPR!City of LA Zero Waste Plan Stakeholder

Guiding Principles

1.Education to decrease consumption2.City leadership to model zero waste practices3.Education to increase recycling4.City leadership to increase recycling5.Manufacturer responsibility6.Consumer responsibility7.Convenience8.Incentives9.New, safe, technology10.Protect public health & environment11.Equity12.Economic efficiency

Examples of Thermostats

Approx 3gm of mercury

PaintCare.org

Carpet Stewardship – 1st in World!

"I am very pleased the Governor approved my bill to promote recycling of carpets. More than 1.3 million tons of old carpets and rugs are sent to landfills every year. I introduced AB 2398 because keeping that enormous amount of materials out of landfills and reusing them instead will significantly improve sustainability in the carpet industry while promoting the growth of green jobs. Speaker John Perez” 9/30/10

Why Did CA Pass AB 2398?

1. EPA reported that carpet was #4 GHG product in landfills in CA

2. Losing the U.S. biggest carpet recycler in the Speakers district – LA Fiber – Green Jobs!

3. Carpet is 4% by volume of what is disposed in CA

CA State Costs to Manage Product Waste – ADF or EPR Framework

• Paint Program with ADF: $21,000,000 – ? staff

• Paint Program with EPR: $261,000 – 4 staff

Not “Pure EPR” Policy

1. Allowed CARE to be single stewardship organization for 2 years – April 1, 2015 (competition limited)

2. Visible fee not Internalized cost of doing business (.05 cents per yard) – no economic feedback to drive better design)

3. “Continuous and Meaningful Improvement” No recycling rate or date (oversight problems)

4. No advisory committee or required stakeholder consultation

Lack of oversight authority and clear goals causes big problems!• Stewardship Plan is “pixie dust” approach –

they call it “free market”• Plan goal 16% by 2016 and without

recycling rates and dates, CalRecycledeemed CARE “non-compliant” with continuous and meaningful improvement towards that goal but no fine yet

• CalRecycle has issues with “continuous and meaningful” and will not enforce until see three year trend

Carpet Program Problems

• Didn’t work with others to develop plan• No California staff until May 2015• Not enough support of good recyclers• No auditing of the “carpet collectors”• Terrible PR campaign• Marketing PET carpet as “earth friendly”• Not working with existing industry well• No in state collector subsidy• Not labeling carpet to identify what it is

CARE “Non Compliant”

Presented by:Doug Kobold, Program ManagerDepartment of Waste Management & Recycling

17,695 tons of carpet residual stockpiledin about 600 days!

That’s over 58,000 lbs/day!

What does over 17,000 tons of carpet look like?

That’s a full sizeconstruction excavator!

These are 56 footBig Rig trailers!

Huge piles more than 15 feet high!

15,950 tons (about 660 truckloads) hauled about 54 miles to Potrero Hills Landfill in Fairfield.

1,745 tons (about 70 truckloads) hauled less than a mile to L&D Landfill in Sacramento.

Potrero Hills Landfill

L&D Landfill

Carpet Collectors

Where did that 17,695 tons (or 35,390,000 lbs) of carpet

go during October 2013?

The Aftermath!Estimated Cleanup Cost to Landowner: ~$1MM

Environmental Fines to Landowner: $125K

RMDZ Loan Loss to CalRecycle: ~$1.8MM

Total (w/major costs captured): ~$3MM

Recently discovered old carpetstockpile site.

~55 acre parcel with a carpet bale wall

encompassing about three quarters of the

perimeter.

Location of Site

Wall Starts Here

More Wall Here

Wall Ends Here

More Stored Bales

Cost to clean up this mess?

Only time will tell!

https://carpetrecovery.org

California Processors(Source: CARE Website)

California Collectors(Source: CARE Website)

AB 2398 (Perez)September 2010

22 companies collecting in California(CARE 2013 Annual Report – July 1, 2014)

5 recyclers in California & 11 Nationwide(CARE 2013 Annual Report – July 1, 2014)

We need to:

• Increase domestic uses for carpet fibers.

• Increase recycling opportunities, especially for PET fibers and backing for all carpet.

• Increase demand for materials made from ground up carpet (Example: Geotextiles, Geomats, etc.).

Contact Information:Doug KoboldProgram Manager

Department of Waste Management & RecyclingCounty of Sacramento

(916) 875-7087koboldd@saccounty.net

What is Working in Carpet?

• Saved Los Angeles Fiber • 16 Rural counties with free trailers and

transportation• Fifteen known urban collection sites• Six new processors entered the carpet

recycling marketplace in 2014

CARE National Voluntary Programhttps://carpetrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Voluntary-Product-Stewardship-Plan1.pdf

The following is from page 21 of this link. It’s from an annual letter that the sorters need to sign to get funds from the voluntary program.

4. Company understands that this Program is part of the industry’s government relations activities and that the purpose of this Program is to promote and support voluntary market-driven solutions for the diversion of Post-Consumer Carpet, and oppose efforts to enact Extended Producer Responsibility or EPR legislation or regulations. Company agrees that a condition for payment is supporting the purpose of this Program rather than supporting EPR-type legislation or regulation during the term of the Program and for eighteen months after receiving the last payment hereunder. Company specifically agrees and undertakes to refund any payments received under the Program for violation of the preceding obligation.

• Mercury Thermostats:– If its not in the bill, it won’t happen (ex: public education)– Deadlines don’t matter without enforcement

• Paint: – Contracting can be onerous and time consuming– Convenience standards should be specific– Fee money can be used to sue against oversight/pay for defense

• Carpet:– Never collect fee before program starts– Visible fees create problems!– If Stewards are not auditing, they will fund poor operators

• All Three Bills:– Producers will not design an optimum program without stakeholder input– Allow state to audit for oversight, not just submit audited financials

LEGISLATION: LESSONS LEARNED

SB 254 – Mattresses Some facilities recycle both carpet and mattresses – similar materials

Required Advisory Committee seems to have solved stakeholder engagement problem

EPR State Legislation is Hard!

• Producer associations have organized against it• National Chamber of Commerce submitted an

Amicus Brief opposing Alameda’s pharmaordinance claiming EPR is a economic evil

• We are in the final stages of the denial phase of the grieving process by producers that they can externalize all the costs -

• We will move into acceptance soon and legal rules of the road will be laid making the path forward clearer and easier

EPR for Meds Around the World

• Canada: Health Product Stewardship Association www.healthsteward.ca– British Columbia: Oldest program started

voluntarily in 1996, became law in 2004 http://www.healthsteward.ca/returns/british-columbia

• Spain: Sigre Stewardship Program Started in 2003 http://www.sigre.es/en/

• France: Cyclamed Stewardship Program Started in 2007www.cyclamed.org/en

• Mexico: Pilot in 2008, expanded countrywide in 2014 http://singrem.org.mx

Priority Products Survey October 2014 - 109 Respondents

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Textiles

Roofing Shingles

Solar Panels

Marine Flares

Fire Extinguishers

Cell Phones

Packaging

Aerosol Cans

1 Lb. Gas Cylinders

Electronic Waste

Pesticides

Sharps

Fluorescent Lamps

Household Batteries

Pharmaceuticals

Marc J. Rogoff, Ph.D.http://wasteadvantagemag.com/april-2015-digital-issue/

April 2015 Edition

Canadian Health Products Stewardship Association

• Industry Designs and Oversees Program

• 100% Industry Funded

• Report to Government

• BC, Manitoba, Ontario - Nov

• Nova Scotia in 2015

http://www.healthsteward.ca

Facts and OutcomesOntario, Canada EPR Program

• Ontario Regs. EPR for meds/sharps 10/12

– >90% Voluntary pharmacy participation – met

regulated goal year 1 – 3,400 pharmacies!

– Provided 200,000 free sharps containers

– Collected 407 T medications and 259 T sharps

– Did not increase costs to consumers!

• www.healthsteward.ca

MED EPR – Portugal

• Program – SIGREM• Organizing body – Valormed (est. 1999)• Organized/funded by:

– Association of Portuguese Pharmaceutical Industries (APIFARMA)

– Pharmaceutical Distributors (Groquifar)– National Pharmacies Association (ANF)

• Payments are collected through a fee placed on packaging. (Fee was $.006 USD or €0.005 in 2011)

• Retail participation voluntary; 99% pharmacy participation rate in 2011.

Meds EPR – Mexico

• Program Name/Organizing body – SINGREM• Organized/funded by:

– National Chamber of the Pharmaceutical Industry– Mexican Association of Pharmaceutical Research

Industries – National Association of Pharmaceutical

Manufacturers • Contributions based on individual member

company’s proceeds• 2008 – Pilot program launched in Puebla• 2009 – Program approved for nation-wide

permanent implementation by 2015

Alameda County, CA Ordinance EPR for Meds Adopted July 2012

30 disposal locations currently Located at convenient designated

sites, including unincorporated areas

$40,000 per year disposal costs Significant use of volunteers Real cost est. over $300K/yr

Ordinance – Pure EPR Approach Only covers prescription – not OTC Passed 5-0 vote knowing they

would be sued

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6eUT8K0akc

Margaret ShieldLocal Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County

Secure Medicine Return for King County, WA

15

Article in New York Times 12/7/12 quotes complaint:

“The household trash can is a better and safer alternative, the drug makers say”

• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), General Pharmaceutical Association & Biotechnology Industry Association

• Filed in Federal Court claiming violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution

Alameda County Prevailed in 9th Circuit Court 8/29/13!

Then PhRMA Appealed 9/12/13 in Federal Court of Appeals

• 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - 3 judge panel – 7/11/14• No new facts – only interpretation of law• Judge “I have a feeling this may not be the last word on this”

• Court sides with Alameda County, upholds ruling 9/30/14• Appealed and High Court Declined to Hear Case 5/26/15

Appealed to Federal 9th Circuit

SB 727/1014 – EPR for Medications• Mirrored Alameda Ordinance, added OTCs• Stakeholder negotiation meetings• Both bills failed – need for local action• Senator Jackson sent letter asking local govt. to

consider ordinance Oct. 30, 2014

National News AttentionNational Public Radio, January 2014

Senator Jackson Letter to Locals

Letter sent October 31, 2014 asks for local governments to consider ordinances to move the issue forward in California.

City/County of San FranciscoMedicine EPR Ordinance March 2015

Ordinance introduced at May 19 Board of Supervisors Meetingand passed with a 10-0 vote, with one Supervisor excused and signed by

Mayor Edwin Lee 3/26/15.

County of San MateoMedicine EPR Ordinance 4/28/2015

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq7-zIoOYzk

Ordinance introduced and heard at April 14th Board of Supervisors Meetingand passed with a 5-0 vote. Waymond Wong, Program Manager,

Environmental Health and Heather Forshey, Director of Environmental Health

County of Santa ClaraMedicine EPR Ordinance 5/19/15

Ordinance introduced at May 19 Board of Supervisors Meetingand passed with a 3-0 vote, with two Supervisors recusing themselves from

vote due to pharmaceutical investments.

County of Santa BarbaraMedicine Stakeholder Process Begins 5/19/15

Public Health Department authorized to conduct stakeholder outreach and return in October 2015 with recommendations for

sustainable & convenient medicine disposal program

Supreme Court Could Weigh Local Mandates on Drug Makers - March 27, 2015

“‘Why is it fair to privatize 100 percent of the profits and socialize 100 percent of the costs?’

‘These are the same companies that don't like taxes, don't want fees, don't like big government, and we're offering them a program where they get to write their own regulations.’”

- Heidi Sanborn

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-could-weigh-local-mandates-on-drug-makers/article/2562121

“These statutes are taking off, we see there's a movement in California to expand beyond the pharmaceutical industry,’

‘This is the first time where a county or local government has reached out and forced companies in another state to provide a service to their local residents,’ Spears said.”

Mit Spears, general counsel for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

Appeal to Supreme Court

12/29/14: PhRMA and other plaintiff organizations file a Petition For Writ of Certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case – Petition text5/26/15: Denied!

City of Roseville Survey of Residents

Key Survey Findings Meds (cont.) The vast majority of respondents support the concept of a take-back program, with a total 86% of respondents saying they would be likely to use it.

Key Survey Findings Meds (cont.)

Respondents were asked “If a medication take-back program were to be established, how do you think it should be funded?” Responses were categorized into the following:

Looking Ahead Macro Themes and Trends

• Local legislation and projects• New products – solar panels, tires, sharps• Attempts at local pre-emption state/fed• Externalized costs made permanent under

guise of “convenience & comprehensive solutions”

• Federal legislation – Sharps in medicare• NaCO and National League of Cities more

My Hope for Oregon• Honest review on what works• Apply EPR where appropriate • Ensure EPR bills are structured to work• Don’t turn the keys over to industry

without proper controls and goals balancing needs of all stakeholders

• Start small – require transparency first -carpet labeling of fiber and transparent and accurate marketing (no “earth friendly” for PET)

EPR is only one policy tool –can be creative!

Shift to EPR is a Marathon Not a Sprint...

Thank you for your support!

Heidi SanbornExecutive Director heidi@calpsc.org916-706-3420

www.CalPSC.orgConnect!