Mitch, do not use that. Mitch, use the part where
Paul calls Bono Australian. Don't do it. Oh,
man. Five bucks. No, that's not enough. Not happening.
Welcome to County Connection. the official podcast
of the Washington State Association of Counties,
where we dive into the legislative issues shaping
the future of our communities. From budgets to
public safety, infrastructure to elections, we'll
break down what's happening in Olympia and how
it impacts counties from across the Evergreen
State. Stay informed, stay engaged, and join
us as we amplify the voice of Washington's 39
counties. Welcome everybody to the County Connection
Podcast. I'm Paul Jewell, the Government Relations
Director for the Washington State Association
of Counties, and I'm here bringing you actually
a very special podcast this morning, breaking
news here in the legislature. Travis, how's things
going for you? Welcome back. It's been a while
since we've had you on. Yeah, it has been a while.
Things have been really busy, but there was...
um big news at two o 'clock this morning yeah
yeah let's get into that um for sure but it feels
like you've been you've been off the podcast
so long you need to remind people who you are
Travis Dutton, our policy coordinator, right?
Handling, not land use, you're handling solid
waste and environmental issues, some energy issues
for us this year. But we're here to talk a little
bit about a solid waste bill, right? Yeah. Yeah.
We're here to talk about extended producer responsibility.
So what bill number is that? It is, I don't know
the version right now off the top of my head,
but it is Senate Bill 5284. Okay. Extended producer
responsibility for product packaging and paper
products, right? Correct. Just rolls off the
tongue. Yeah. It really does have a little bit
of a sing to it, doesn't it? I think it's also
referred to as the Recycling Reform Act. Okay.
Got lots of names. Yeah. In the past, it's been
called... The WRAP, the Washington... It's been
different acronyms and different titles. Yeah.
They had WRAP and they had REWRAP and all kinds
of different stuff. But this particular policy
has been considered by the... legislature for
i think is this the fifth year or the fourth
year i want to say this is the fifth year um
i know it's been in place all three years i've
been working here and um before that so i know
this is likely the fifth iteration okay and a
little probably a little surprisingly i mean
at least i was a little surprised by it we'd
heard some rumors and whatnot and i know that
they were counting votes but it actually was
voted out of the house yesterday and it's already
been through the senate so this is going to become
law in washington state yeah yeah it was um it
had it was very close i know the votes were very
close i should have written down the numbers
before i came in here but um they were very very
close yeah it was 27 22 in the senate originally
which is a you know that's only a five vote margin.
And there were some Democrats, you know, this
has been a very much a party line issue here
in Washington between the R's and D's. But there
were some Democrats that voted with the Republicans
in the Senate. And then the same thing happened
last night in the House. It was only 51 -45 with
eight Democrats voting with the Republicans to
say no. You know, usually you see policies. that
have this kind of a close of a vote, you know,
that are more along kind of ideological political
lines. Like maybe it's, you know. you know, pro
-choice policy or a gun control policy or something
like that, where, you know, you have the Republicans
firmly in one camp and the Democrats firmly in
another. But this is really about solid waste
management and recycling. Things that, you know,
all of us think are good things in Washington
state, right? We want our garbage to be handled
properly. We want the environment to be protected.
I think everyone supports recycling, maybe at
different levels, but everybody certainly does.
But this one here, you know, to see such a sweeping
policy come off the legislative floor with such
a close vote, it makes me kind of question, you
know, what's wrong with the policy versus, you
know, why are people so worried about it and
what sort of impact it's going to have in Washington
state moving forward? Why don't... Why don't
you tell us just kind of briefly, remind us what
this is all about. When you say EPR, what we
mean is extended producer responsibility, right?
We have some of these programs already in place
in Washington. How is this one different? What's
going to change? Yeah. So like you mentioned,
we have EPR programs in place for paint, electronics.
There's a similar type of program for mercury
-containing light bulbs. Okay, so those are those
tubular lights? Yeah. So you're supposed to take
those back. When you buy lights, you're supposed
to take them back to basically where you bought
them from, right? Yes. And so they take those
back. Is that an EPR program? That's basically,
in essence, it's an EPR program. It's structured
a little bit differently in how... people that
buy light bulb pay for it, but it is essentially
an EPR program. What happens to the light bulbs
when I give them back? It depends on, well, with
the light bulbs, they're responsible for recapturing
the mercury, recycling what parts of a light
bulb they can. It's the same with the electronics
or the paint. It's a split between recycling
and recovering valuable materials. And then also
just making sure that all of the hazardous materials,
chemicals, or the, you know, like the mercury
or the lead -based paints are all sent to the
right type of a landfill. Well, who pays for
them? that because i give them back for free
the producers pay for that so the manufacturers
of paint pay into washington's paint care program
the light bulb program has a fee that you pay
every time you purchase a light bulb similar
to tires or your car batteries so those costs
can get put back on the consumer so i mean technically
i'm the one who's buying the light bulb that's
got the mercury and all the problems in it right
to use in a fixture that i have that i haven't
changed out and so uh which I don't actually
think I buy these anymore, but I did in the past.
And so I pay an extra fee up front when I buy
the new light bulb. And then when I... turn the
other one in, it doesn't cost me anything. Correct,
yeah. You just have to take it back to the place.
And the same thing is true for electronics, and
the same thing is true for paint, and the same
thing is true for... Some of the newer EPR models,
the ones, paint, electronic waste that have passed,
there is no identified fee that you pay when
you buy a computer. You don't pay a disposal
fee on top of it. When you buy paint, you don't
pay a disposal fee or deposit on top of that.
It's all sort of baked into the business model
for the paint or the electronics. And ultimately,
for the portion of whatever they sell into Washington,
they have to pay into those programs to take
back their paint and make sure it's recovered,
recycled, reused, or disposed of appropriately.
But it doesn't cost me anything when I take my
paint in to have it disposed of. Right. You should
be able to drop off your paint, your electronics.
Soon you'll be able to do the same thing with
your batteries. But yeah, those programs are
intended to be no direct cost to engage with
for customers. So all of those programs that
we're talking about, the paint, the light bulbs,
electronics, et cetera, they all focused on one
particular product. And they seemed like they
were dealing with something that was kind of
a nuisance, right? Or was a contaminant in many
ways. So I think everybody looked at those pretty
favorably. But this bill, 5284, that... you know,
is obviously pretty controversial, right? We
talked about how it narrowly came out of both
the House and the Senate. This one goes way beyond
that, right? It's a much more expansive program.
And in fact, when you listen to the, and I listened
to a lot of the floor debate. The Democrats and
the people who are really supporting the program
talk about how it's going to fundamentally reshape
how we recycle in Washington state and provide
all kinds of benefits. Now, the opposers also
talked about how it was fundamentally going to
reshape recycling programs in Washington state,
but not in a good way. So how does this go beyond
those programs that you just described? You know,
we talked about it being paper products and product
packaging. Kind of describe for us what that
means. And then, you know, how is it going to
fundamentally reshape recycling? And will it
be for the good or will it be for the bad? I
think that's one of the, that reason is one of
the reasons that there was quite this. One of
the reasons that there was such a split is because
this is going to be a big, big change for the
state of Washington and how our recycling programs
are run. Big, big changes come with big, big
questions and uncertainties. And I think a lot
of those uncertainties played out in the voting
process. I think there are some people that feel
like there are still better ways to achieve increased
recycling or better recycling services in the
state and other folks that feel like this is
the best path forward to do that. So as far as
restructuring goes, you know, right now, counties
are responsible for ensuring that recycling services
are available, that outreach and education is
taking place. that materials um you know and
we get to decide whether or not materials go
on a recycling list or pull or not um so counties
actually decide what gets recycled in their county
and what doesn't yes okay often what counties
will fall into though is is sort of defaulting
to what the market will take if there's a market
for something like a used plastic you know virgin
if there's a market for something then it's recyclable
technically we'll put it on our list because
it's something that we can provide at a lower
cost to our customers well that just makes sense
right i mean if you can collect something and
then sell it to someone who wants to recycle
it, even if you're going to break even or make
a little bit of money, that's a good program.
But if you're going to collect something that
nobody wants and separate that, well, then you're
just, you're just kind of separating it for nothing.
Right. And that just increased costs. Yeah. I
think, and that kind of touches on one of the
other. Parts of the split, too, is that for those
products earlier, paints, batteries, electronics,
there weren't necessarily programs in existence
where you could take your laptop or your household
batteries or your decades of stored paint that
you have in your garage. Yeah, that stuff was
just going in the landfill, right? Right, where
it creates environmental hazards, or it was being
shipped someplace where it was creating environmental
hazards elsewhere. This bill focuses on quite
a few products that already... have a container.
at people's curbs that they can put these things
in, your pop bottles, your cardboard boxes, you
know, a lot of the packaging that you bring home
from the grocery store. Does like a can for like
soup or beans or vegetables, like, you know,
you open that, like a tin can, you open it up,
dump out the stuff. Is that considered a container?
Yes. Under this bill? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that
would be packaging. So, you know, that's one
of the concerns that people had was we already
have a system for this in Washington. And Washington
is one of the And Washington was a leader in
performance, how well people participated in
that system. But one of the things that - Yeah,
I would, not to interrupt too much, but I would
say most people would, I think most people would
say, just kind of from a layman's point of view,
someone who maybe isn't super involved, they
would say that our recycling - System works pretty
good here in Washington, right? Recycling is
widely available. You can drive it to the transfer
station or recycling place yourself if you want
to. There's curbside where you mix everything
together. There's feels like wherever you go
where there's a lot of people, like if you go
to a stadium or an airport or a bus stop or not
a bus stop necessarily, but like a bus transfer
station or something, there's always recycling
bins. So what is this going to do that improves
that from kind of everybody's point of view?
One of the struggles that counties have right
now is the ability to communicate with our residents
about how to engage in your recycling system.
So you get things in the mail or maybe you have
a poster on your wall or a flyer or something
up that tells you what you can put in your recycling
bin, what you can't put in your recycling bin.
That's a primary county responsibility. And that's
something that we take very seriously and something
that we work very hard on to make sure that.
that recycling system is being used appropriately,
that the right things are going in and the bad
things are not going in that kind of ruin everything
else. One of the biggest challenges with that,
though, is that we don't really have any connection
with the people that make the things that go
in that recycling bin. So we have to be able
to communicate to our residents how to recycle
without knowing what changes are going to be
made to certain types of products or certain
types of materials. And so what that does is
it really... passes on some confusion or it creates
some confusion in people that use the system.
Because if you buy a new type of product at the
grocery store, you are likely to default on putting
it in your recycling bin, whether it belongs
there or not. And so just the constantly changing
flow of materials. Is this going to change that
somehow? It's going to create statewide lists
that will be consistent across the state and
are... because the producers now have a stake.
So we should go back, though, because I don't
think I explained that this model will require
the producers to fund an organization that makes
sure that... all of the products that are covered
under this bill are collected and recycled and
put back into sort of the circle of life. It's
not the word I'm looking for here, but put back
into products and recycled into new things. Kind
of that circular economy that they talk about,
right? So you produce something, it goes and
gets sold by a consumer, they consume it, the
leftover residual, in this case product packaging,
gets recycled and then gets... put back into
new material that then gets sold again by a consumer
who consumes it. Right. That's, that's kind of
the circular economy. I assume that's what you're
referring to. Yes. That was much more eloquent
than the Lion King reference. You were giving
some really nice hand signals that of course
people can't hear it on podcast. It's a little
harder. Yeah. Making circles with fingers. I'll
make sure I do that next time. Nobody can see
you do that, but that's okay. That's why podcasts
are so much fun. So, so, So you said they have
to create this organization that's responsible
for that? Yeah. It's called the Producer Responsibility
Organization. We'll refer to it as the PRO from
now on. We'll get lost in the acronym for sure.
Who runs it? It's an independent nonprofit organization
that is funded by... producers, but not operated
directly by producers. There's a lot of legalese
on their connection to producers and who can
be on that organization. But really, it's a nonprofit
organization that's intended to go around and
look at how recycling is being handled now, what's
necessary to... increase the level of service
to more residents, give curbside recycling to
more residents, create more opportunities for
public recycling, as well as taking a look at
the infrastructure that's necessary to transport
recycling, to process recycling. And it's that
pro's responsibility to then fund it either through
the existing system or to directly... create
new infrastructure and new programs, outreach
and education, et cetera. So this pro, it's a
private nonprofit. It's funded by the manufacturers?
Yes. So by manufacturer, like I'm Coca -Cola,
I sell Coke, I sell sugar water, right? That's
flavored and caramel colored. And I have these
cans or I have these bottles, right? Or maybe
I have, you know, logo cups or whatever. I'm
now responsible for recycling these cans or these
bottles, and I do it through this pro. And does
the pro charge me for how much product I put
in the marketplace? Is that how that works? You
have to pay a fee based on the amount of material
or the amount of products that you're selling
into the state. Okay. And there are also... Yes.
Okay. So I'm a soda company, like I just mentioned.
Those products are valuable though, right? We
recycle plastic bottles now and we recycle aluminum
cans and we get money for those. Does that get
factored in here? It does. Because I would assume,
does the pro sell? I mean, if the pro is responsible
for setting up the system to collect these things,
does the pro now own those things and sells them
back into the marketplace? There's a couple of
different ways. Materials will make it to the
markets. So materials will still go in people's
curbside container. Ideally, and hopefully more
products will be able to go into that curbside
container. Once the program is in place, those
materials will still go to the MRF. The MRF will
still, sorry, those materials will still go to
the facility that sorts them, the material recovery
facility or MRF. The pro is responsible. Look
at you catching yourself with these. I know,
right? You did it perfectly. Way to go, Travis.
No, I lost track of what I was going to say.
Something about a MRF? That's the host's strategy
for distracting you. A lot of the current system
is still going to be in place. goal is to beef
that up, expand those services to more people,
create more opportunities to engage in the recycling
system. But it also creates a stronger connection
between producers and what it takes to recycle
the products that they manufacture. So the idea
is that having... financial responsibility in
collecting and recycling the things that you
make incentivizes better design upstream to make
sure it can be more easily, more efficiently
recycled downstream. Well, I was going to ask
that question. There were two questions that
I was going to ask, but that was one of them.
So I'm glad you kind of went there. So the idea
that I'm a product manufacturer and I have to
now participate. in this program because I've
got product packaging or I've got paper or whatever.
You know, there's a couple of ways to go, right?
I can try to make sure that I'm using materials
that have value that can be recycled so that
I can minimize my cost. Or the other option is
to minimize packaging. I mean, sometimes you
get, you know, you buy this little tiny thing
in this giant package that's meant to attract
attention on the shelf, but really there's a
lot of money spent on that packaging. completely
useless and can never be reused like those blister
packs you know they're wrapped in that really
hard cardboard you know whatever it may be those
are always really fun to try you need like the
jaws of life to get like like an sd card out
of a package like a blowtorch you know you want
to hit it with your card full speed just to open
it um so you know and that stuff could be considered
wasteful right so there's some strong incentives
here to maybe change the way that product packaging
is used in our state and maybe in the nation.
Yeah. I mean, you know, it'll be interesting
to see how that plays out because a lot of that
packaging is designed for security reasons. You
know, a lot of those things are big packages,
so you can't run out of the store with them as
easily. Or, you know, they need that packaging
to protect the thing that's in them. So it'll
be interesting to see what... if any, packaging
changes we see in the near future. But that idea
is to, right now, that blister package is not
recyclable in every program across the state.
Right. That's a really good example of something
that's not. And it would be under this program.
It would be. And that sort of standardization
would occur across the state. That is, yes. One
of the requirements is that lists are created
that are consistent across the state for what
can be collected in curbside containers and then
what needs to be collected. through drop -off
programs. Certain things will always need to
be kept separate. Well, I think most people would
have to consider that a bit of an improvement,
especially the people who know about recycling
in the system. You certainly work with our solid
waste managers on a regular basis. You guys go
deep into this stuff, way deeper than anybody
else would even be interested in going. We were
actually thinking about starting our own sub
-podcast. Just on this. Mitch is not allowed
to name it, though, because he's going to have
something about talking trash. Talking trash
with Travis. Yeah, that's a great name. Traffic.
You don't like that. Trashes. We'll work on that.
Sorry. No worries. But the other piece to this.
is, you know, we did some research with that
group a few years ago, and there is a lot of
variation from county, even counties that are
right next door to each other in what is allowed
to be recycled and what's not. And that can be
really confusing for folks. I mean, if you're
in one county and they're accepting glass, and
then you go to the next county and they're not
accepting glass, right? Or in one county, they're
taking mixed paper and in another county, they're
only taking cardboard. And that's a lot of change.
And it's really hard for people to understand
what goes in the bin and what doesn't go in the
bin. I work in this industry with you. My family
blows it all the time. I am always out there
saying, that's not recyclable. That's not recyclable.
Throw that in the trash. And they look at me
like I'm crazy. You know, it's kind of a you
want to get it right. Otherwise, like you said,
you're putting the wrong things in the wrong
places, which creates contamination and ruins
the whole batch for, you know, anybody else.
It's like throwing a, you know, cigarette butt
into an apple pie. Not so good at the end. No,
no. That sounds awful. I would imagine. It's
funny you mentioned the other thing. It's not
an apple pie I want to eat. No. No, I'm trying
to think if there's anybody that would. I can't
think of anybody that wants to eat tobacco apple
pie. But it's funny you mentioned the family
thing, too, because when I used to do outreach
and education for... county solid waste programs,
tabling booths out at events and fairs and things.
I would say 50 % of the people that came up to
talk to me, I was settling some type of marital
or family dispute about what needs to happen
with something in the house. As far as recycling
goes? Yeah. It almost became where I need to,
it was like, I'm going to charge people because
this is therapy or like couples therapy because
the... One is trying to get me to prove the other
one wrong or right. And then they're hashing
that out in front of me. And it was pretty funny.
But it was amazing how often I was out there.
Feels like you could have written a blog post
about that. I probably should have. Just started
like, these are the people that came up and talked
to me today. And these are the marital disputes
I solved today. Life and times of a solid waste
consultant. Maybe I should put on my resume,
like saved 50 plus marriages. Yeah, that's perfect.
Recycling based divorce. Yeah. And then every
time you save another one, you can add another
one. And pretty soon you'll just have to be like
billions and billions saved. But it's hard. I
mean, it's hard. Like I have to do this. My wife
too, like she's had to live with me. I still
point out all the garbage trucks around town.
I can't imagine how challenging that is. I'm
not allowed to point out. uh, the semi trucks
or the vehicles that are moving garbage around
anymore. Um, she's just over that. Um, but in
my head, but yeah. Um, I can't, I can't believe
she'd be over that. I mean, that sounds so charming
and romantic that, I mean, you, you're a wild
Friday night. I can only, I can only imagine.
It's pretty great. I'm like, let's go down to
the railroad tracks and watch all the garbage
trains go by. Well, let's get back to my other
question because I was curious about this producer
responsibility organization or this pro and how
they're now responsible for paying for the system.
And I kind of use myself as an example as a manufacturer
that has product packaging and how that would
work. Sounds like I'm going to have to pay to
be part of that. But how does this fall on the
consumer, this new program? Because right now,
if I'm recycling... I don't have curbside service.
I live out in the county. And so I collect my
recycling and then I take it in. And there's,
you know, some different bins, you know, some
that have bottles and some that have cardboard
and some that have magazines and, you know, on
and on and on. Milk jugs, right? And so I just
kind of put them in the right place and I do
it for free. It doesn't cost me any money. I
can go there anytime, you know, six days a week
whenever they're open. It's just kind of a...
pop in, get it done and go. Other people have
curbside recycling and I know that they pay for
that, right? There's a cost doing that. How is
that going to change under this new system? Is
it going to change? Are we going to see any different?
Is it going to be cheaper? Is it going to be
more expensive? Am I going to have to go pay
to drop this stuff off now? What about curbside?
This is one of the areas where it gets really
complicated. So I'll try to see if I can break
it down at the right level. So as I mentioned
earlier, the pro is responsible for funding this
program, but not completely. There are still
some costs that the rate payers or the customers
are still expected to pay. So in the example
you gave, if you go to your transfer station
to drop off your recyclables, that is likely
to still be an option and is likely to still
be free. Because your county is providing that
for you. It's a service that they're providing.
That's a big load off of my... Mine. I was worried
I was going to have to start paying to do that.
So that's good. You might also be in an area
where they are expanding curbside recycling service.
So you might get curbside recycling service in
your neighborhood if you don't currently have
it. Okay. It's not going to be everywhere. Obviously,
if somebody, you know, they're not going to send
a garbage or a recycling truck 100 miles down
the road to pick up one person's recycling container.
So it should be based upon where it makes sense
to provide curbside recycling. don't have curbside
recycling, that will be an option for people
in some places around the state where it's not
available currently. And you will have to pay
for that service. But because the pro is paying
for most of it, it will not be as high as you
would have paid a year ago. And if you have recycling
service curbside now, your bill will go down
over time as the pro As the program starts up,
as the pro becomes responsible for paying for
the program, your curbside recycling bill should
go down. Okay, so it'll be cheaper, at least
for the recycling portion of it. Correct, yes.
So you mentioned that not all the costs are covered.
Previous bills that the legislature had proposed,
because as we mentioned at the outset, this is,
I think, the fifth year this has been considered.
Previous bills did cover it all. Is that something
new in this bill? When the bill was introduced
this year, it covered all of it. It was fully
funded. That is something that changed throughout
this session. That was something that was adopted.
I can go into the why, but that was new this
year. But it's also inspired or modeled after
an extended producer responsibility program out
of Minnesota. Okay. So they've looked at that
Minnesota version. They decided that was a better
version. So that's what's in this bill. So not
all of the... the costs are covered, but the
majority at, at, at say like full implementation,
what does that, what does that majority? 90%.
Okay. At least they say at least 90%, but 90
% is the, so it, what that looks like is that
you would be paying. 10 % of what you would have
been paying for your curbside recycling service.
And it'll be listed out on your bill, how much
is being funded by the pro versus how much you're
still paying. I see. That's interesting. I was
listening to the debate, not last night, not
at 2 a .m., but I was listening to it this morning
because, you know, you and I talked and I said,
hey, let's get this podcast out. Let's do a breaking
news one. But I wanted to kind of see what the
reactions, excuse me, were and kind of what the
discussion was on the floor. And there were two
things that were really thematic in the discussions,
especially from the people who were opposed to
the policy. Number one, they look at this pro
as being given a lot of authority and a lot of
control over recycling in Washington state without
much oversight. And I think by that, what they
really talk about is the fact that, you know,
who's going to control the pricing here? Who's
to say the pro doesn't just, you know? hire a
bunch of people and pay them really great wages,
which is good, but at a much higher cost over
time to the service recipients, right? That 90
% suddenly is no longer 90 % of what the costs
are today, but 90 % of a much higher number where
these private entities are essentially really
profiting handsomely through this. producer responsibility
organization and where are the checks and balances
on that. And then the second really important
talking point maybe or kind of train the thought
that they were going down constantly was you
say, and I don't mean you, but the proposers
of this policy or the supporters of the policy
say, this is going to be better for consumers.
We're going to get better service. It's going
to cost us less. But there's going to be a cost
definitely to the participants, the producers
who aren't paying that cost today, doesn't that
mean it's actually going to cost you more at
the retail level, at the grocery store, at the
convenience store, et cetera? Aren't you going
to be paying for this in a different way and
probably at a much higher cost than you're paying
now just to recycle those materials? I know you've
thought about that. I know you've looked into
that. I know there are arguments both ways. I
mean, what do you think the answers are there?
You know, there are a lot of studies A lot of
data out there, and like you said, they say a
lot of different things. They lean towards a
very small or minimal impact, which depending
on the person, minimal is a different definition,
right? It's all relative. But I've been trying
to think of it from the perspective of the cost
going down. for me to pay for curbside recycling
service compared to whatever costs are passed
along to me at the register is a shift or a transfer
of my money, right? I'm paying less for recycling
and maybe I'm paying more over here for groceries,
but I'm also getting better service. I'm getting
increased confidence that when I put something
in the recycling bin, it's going to go to where
it needs to go to be recycled and not as dictated
by, not as susceptible to design changes or market
changes, but that I'll be able to consistently
rely on a list. and find that I'm getting better
service overall. Well, in some ways, aren't you
also choosing to pay more by buying those types
of products? You mentioned some products are
really easy to recycle, some are less. And I
mentioned, I think we were talking about soda
manufacturers, those plastic bottles and those
aluminum cans, they actually have value. And
so the fact that... that they're going to participate,
but there's a kind of a push pull, right? There's
an input and an output, and it's likely to, you
know, maybe have a pretty minimal, if any, impact
at all in that regard versus something that you
might buy that's really hard to recycle, that
a product manufacturer is going to have to pay
a lot more for, you know, to manage that end
of life kind of disposal process. They're obviously
going to be motivated, like we said, to try to
probably change that packaging because it's going
to be too expensive. And it's going to have an
impact on their price, which will probably have
an impact on their sales. But if it does, I'm
still choosing to buy that product, right? And
so kind of the cost is being shifted to the actual
people who use and consume those products versus
kind of all of us being responsible for managing
this waste. Is that... Is that kind of a true
perspective? Or could that be a perspective here?
Yeah, I think that's one of the most powerful
voices we have as consumers is choosing what
we buy and what we don't buy. And that's an option
here for a lot of things. You could almost say
it's an opt -in then. To some extent, yeah. I
think there are still things that you are going
to need and you don't have alternative options.
Nobody makes Thin Mint Oreo cookies in a better
package than Oreo does, right? And I need Oreo
Thin Mint cookies. I'm going to keep buying those
things. That was supposed to be a joke in there.
I have a feeling that you're going to get lots
of Thin Mint Oreo cookies in the mail. Yeah,
let's cut that one. The fans are going to...
Yeah, we've used a lot of brands in this conversation.
The fans are going to start... You're going to
go on... stage and they're just going to throw
those cookies at you. You know who's not going
to send them? My mother -in -law, because I said
that she calls her grandkids burden. Oh, yeah,
that's probably better. I think we should leave
that part in. Yeah. I think in a lot of cases,
Paul, that is true, where people will get to
choose what they purchased based upon their values
and what is more recyclable versus less recyclable.
And there are a lot of products that are exempt
in this build because people don't have choices
such as medication or... products that just don't
come in alternative packaging that you need to
be healthy or survive. So there's a lot of things
that are exempt where people wouldn't necessarily
have that choice. And there are still going to
be things that, I'm trying to think of something
off the top of my head that would be, you might
not have as much of a choice when it comes to
buying certain things as others. Like there are
things that you can choose. I can choose not
to buy as much. bottled water if I want to because
of this. But there are other products that I'm
going to need to buy just because I need them
or they're important for everyday use or survival.
Yeah, in that case, it's not really an opt -in.
Right. You're just kind of you're kind of stuck.
The other kind of price piece of this that a
lot of the people who were concerned about the
policy were making the arguments around where
we have this system in place. And you were talking
about that before. That's actually pretty efficient.
And it's in it's efficient from not just a recycling
and moving goods kind of point of view, but it's
inexpensive. And we really don't know. what all
of this new complication and administration and,
frankly, bureaucracy is going to do to not just
the price of participating. Well, it will do
to the price of participating, but what will
it do eventually to the price of the product?
Because it's not just the product that... the
cost to recycle that product that's going to
be part of it. It's going to be all that administration
and bureaucracy on top of it. And it may actually
be a more costly system. The idea, of course,
is that you are trying to incentivize. better
packaging, more recyclable products, and get
more recyclable products out at the end. But
will the benefits outweigh the cost to the consumer?
Big unknown. Nobody really knows. And I think
that's one of the concerns that a lot of people
have is it is a big unknown as to what this will
look like and what it'll take to get there. Now,
these programs are in place in other places.
BC, of course, is the nearest. Oregon has passed
one but not implemented. California passed one
and just suspended implementation because of
rising costs. Is that right? That not entirely.
They suspended the process, their needs assessment
process due to delays. It's not solely related
to cost. Okay. Yeah, it was probably. Okay. I
can look into exactly why, but it wasn't solely
cost. It was more like it was taking too long
and everybody was being too difficult and they
weren't getting what they needed. So there's
lessons learned there, but I don't know what
they are. But they're not fully implemented either
though, right? There are no states in the US
that have. this level of EPR in place. There's
quite a few places that have passed legislation.
Oregon, as you mentioned, California, like you
mentioned, Maryland, Colorado. Washington. Washington.
I guess, yeah, we're on that list now. And then
Minnesota, like I mentioned, has a... program
that's very similar to the one that we just passed
here. But they're all in the development phase
and still trying to figure out what it's going
to take to get there. And in various points in
that, but nobody has it implemented or in place
yet in the US. So let's talk about the development
phase. When I was reading through some of the
material on this, it looks like 2029 is kind
of what they're targeting. So we're actually
quite a ways out while the bill. past this session,
implementations can start, but they've given
themselves four or five years before they expect
to actually roll this thing out. Is that right?
Yes. Yeah. They've got some, there's quite a
few steps between now and when it hits the ground
or when it starts up. Part of that is a needs
assessment, which is basically taking a look
at a county by county level of what is currently
happening with recycling and what's... needed
to um to improve whether it's building out new
infrastructure increasing service levels new
or higher levels of outreach and education whatever
that is and all of that information will go into
this report that will tell um that will tell
us what it will cost what changes will need to
be made and what it will look like um to have
this system in place but they're doing a county
by county assessment of what is needed really
so travels travis you work with our Solid Waste
Affiliate, which is the managers that operate
and lead the solid waste programs across Washington.
Counties have the primary responsibility for
managing solid waste, which includes recycling
through our comprehensive solid waste management
plans that we have to approve or have in place
and then update on a regular basis. You've been
in solid waste yourself. You guys have been talking
about this program for years. Do you think we're
ready? I don't know that we'd ever be ready,
I guess. Are we ready enough to make a big change
like this within four years, do you think? I
think the only way we're going to figure out
is by trying. I say that I don't know that we're
ever prepared because of all the unknowns of
what it's going to take and what it's going to
look like. Yeah, it feels like the work here
is really cut out for the process when it gets
started moving forward. And there's lots of players,
right? There's ecology, there's these... you
know, pros that have to form. There's some oversight
groups that are going to evaluate these plans
from the producer responsibility organizations
or the pros. I mean, there's, and, and in between,
and those are just the big pieces. There's just
a ton of detail to work out here. How does the
current system interact or not interact? Well,
and how do we get to, you know, a plan is one
thing. How do our systems interact and not interact,
right? Yeah. And then, and just the whole process
of, of, building infrastructure and building
the programs. I mean, there's one thing to study
and make a plan, and then there's a whole other
thing to implement it. And I don't know how much
infrastructure is going to be needed, but I know
that takes a lot of time and it takes a lot of
cost. And I know that's something that every
service in Washington is struggling with around.
Well, we've been behind in building infrastructure
for solid waste with just the. loads that we
have now, right? Just the demand we have now
and maybe looking ahead into the future, but
certainly not considering. large influxes, large
increases in recyclable commodities or the types
of recyclables, that really probably will require
a major investment in new infrastructure just
to be able to handle that product. The other
piece that I just want to touch on really briefly,
the other thing that we've been seeing in recent
years in Washington are new requirements for
post -consumer content in certain materials.
One of the challenges associated with that from
some of the product manufacturers has been getting
access to that material. Recycling rates aren't
high enough. Contamination rates are too high.
We can't get clean product streams, et cetera.
And I'm thinking of things like aluminum, steel.
plastic, you know, recycled paper, recycled cardboard,
all these sorts of things. And I know it looks
like we collect a lot of that stuff and we do,
but we're still collecting only about half of
what actually comes in to the consumer, you know,
that sold to consumers at retail actually get
back out through the recycled market. Is this
type of policy going to help with those? new
requirements and improve those commodity streams?
I think that's the intent. And that is what this
bill is supposed to do is create more material
to be able to meet those requirements. Kind of
back to that circular economy thing that we talked
about, right? Yeah. I think this has, you know,
it has the potential to address some of the materials
that end up maybe even as litter. You know, I
don't know the full extent of how this will play
out, but if... producers are responsible for
capturing a certain percentage of the products
that they sell into the state. A lot of that
ends up on the side of the road. So I'm hopeful
that, you know, that gets better. But they're
going to need to find a way to get as much of
that material as possible. So that they can put
that back into their products. But that is the
intent of this is to create a stronger connection,
both to as things are manufactured, are they
done so in a way that they can be recycled? And
are they processed in a way that they can be
turned back into the thing that they need to
be turned into? And with the, well, yeah, I'll
just leave it at that. I think that's what it
is. Okay. Well, Travis, it's been good chatting
with you about this. I think that this is a huge
policy. I was surprised that it passed this session.
I didn't think it was going to. Sometimes, you
know, the legislature, you know, they can pull
a surprise every now and again. It didn't say.
My understanding is that nobody knew until. 2
o 'clock in the morning. That's probably not
true, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of people
weren't sure until 2 o 'clock this morning whether
that was going to happen or not. Well, a pretty
fundamental bill, Senate Bill 5284, implementing
a new EPR program in Washington State moving
forward for product packaging and paper products,
voted off the House floor at right around 2 a
.m. this morning. What is it, April 15th? So
from here on out, it sounds like we've got a
ton of work to do to figure this thing. It's
tax day too, right? Now it's a tax day and EPR
day in Washington. Wow. EPR and tax day. This
is a big deal. I'm not sure I'd want to be affiliated
with tax day if I was the EPR, but it is what
it is at this point. Well, Travis, thanks for
chatting with us about it. This is actually,
I think, our first breaking news podcast. So
how do you feel now that it's over? I mean, it
is not over. Not even close, right? I mean, this
is when the real work starts. It's been, like
you said, three years of most of my attention
from a WASAC perspective, as far as working on
things during session, many years before that.
But now is when the planning, the data collection,
the needs assessment, this is when it all actually
happens. And this is when the uncertainty starts
to roll out. And we just have to keep moving
towards that. I'm sure there's a lot more to
come. I'm sure there is. But it won't be the
last time we talk about this, I'm sure. Probably
not. Probably not. Well, Travis, thanks for the
update. Really appreciate it. I'm glad that you're
on the case, so to speak. I'm on it. All over
it. All over it. Sounds good. Well, take care
until next time. Thanks. Thanks for tuning in
to County Connection. Stay in the loop by subscribing
to us through your preferred podcasting app and
following us on LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram.
And don't forget to join the hub, your go to
source for the latest news and updates from the
Washington State Association of Counties. Until
next time, stay connected and stay informed.