The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality approved the program plan submitted by Circular Action Alliance (CAA) for Oregon’s new extended producer responsibility law for packaging, paper and food serviceware. The plan aims to enhance recycling, waste reduction and reuse across the state through several key initiatives, including: 

1. Providing funding to local governments and recycling service providers for improvements to Oregon’s recycling system; 
2. Establishing locations around the state to collect harder-to-recycle items;
3. Ensuring that collected materials are recycled responsibly; 
4. Creating educational resources to help people learn about recycling changes and opportunities; and 
5. Reducing environmental impacts of paper, packaging, and food serviceware through fee incentives and by capitalizing a new waste reduction and reuse program. 

In their plan CAA has identified some areas of innovation to improve Oregon’s recycling system. CAA will open a contamination audit center where recycling samples will be brought to from across the state and analyzed to provide each jurisdiction with information on the types of contamination found in their communities recycling stream. Kim Holmes, Executive Director for Oregon at CAA, announced that the program will create “the most comprehensive dataset on recycling contamination the state has ever had.” 

Producers, manufacturers and importers of packaging, paper and food serviceware must submit 2024 supply data through CAA’s portal by March 31, 2025.

 

At the recent public hearing in the House Environment & Energy Committee, there were concerns about the Recycling Reform Act based on the implementation of California’s EPR packaging law and its costs (see article below). While WA's Recycling Reform Act and CA's Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act are both based on EPR, CA's law is very different as it has some very aggressive requirements, targets and timelines: 

California Governor Gavin Newsom rejected the regulations for California’s packaging EPR law, calling on CalRecycle to restart the rulemaking process to “[minimize] costs for small businesses and working families as much as possible,” stated Daniel Villaseñor, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Deputy Director of Communications. Multiple environmental organizations and environmentally oriented stakeholders have accused Gov. Newsom of caving to business pressure, with the Surfrider Foundation and other calling the turn of events “a betrayal.” While CalRecycle is now set to revise the regulations and association rulemaking documents in the coming months, the statutory deadlines to meet plastic packaging recycling rates and reduce the amount of plastic packaging still holds.    

 

The 2025 Plastics Recycling Conference, held in National Harbor, Maryland, convened approximately 2,150 industry professionals to discuss advancements in plastics and textile recovery. A notable feature was the inaugural Textile Recovery Summit, where U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree addressed the summit, advocating for federal EPR legislation and national standards to alleviate local governments' burdens and support domestic textile processors.  

• Battery EPR HB 2062, would require producers of covered batteries or battery-containing products to implement a battery producer responsibility program to fund and manage the collection and processing of batteries and battery-containing products at their end-of-life. 
  • HB 2062 is scheduled for a work session in the House Committee on Climate, Energy, and the Environment on April 3rd.  
• E-Cigarettes EPR SB 1020, would require producers of inhalant delivery systems, e-cigarettes, to join an inhalant delivery system producer responsibility organization and implement a program for the collection and proper disposal of these devices.  
  • SB 1020 is scheduled for a work session in the Senate committee on Labor and Business on March 27th.
• Amendments to Oregon’s Deposit Return System for Beverage Containers:
  • HB 2068, would expand convenient access to redemption centers for Oregon residents to redeem empty beverage containers. The legislation would allow for the establishment of alternative redemption centers and producer responsibility organization depot redemption centers to improve convenient access for Oregon residents.
  • HB 2921 would modify provisions related to the siting and approval of full-service redemption centers for empty beverage containers.  
  • SB 329 would direct cooperatives and retail stores to expand the use of reusable cans or bottles. 
  • SB 869 specifies hours during which dealers must accept returns of beverage containers.
  • HB 3432 would permit a winery to refuse to accept and to pay the refund value of beverage containers not sold at the winery.  
  • SB 963 would direct the OLCC to establish a grant program to facilitate the establishment of a full service redemption center in each city in the state with a population greater than 10,000. 
  • HB 3940 would place a surcharge on the sales of beverage containers for purposes of wildfire prevention and response.    

David Nightingale, Principal at Special Waste Associates, reflects on the work done by the NWPSC when he was with WA Dept. of Ecology on electronics EPR legislation and the importance it had on EPR laws across the US. Thank you to David Nightingale for initiating the article and the contributions from Sego Jackson, Suellen Mele, Heather Trim and David Stitzhal!    

NW Electronics Product Stewardship Laws Inspired National Push 

In early 2002, several electronics manufacturers, government agencies including the US EPA, and environmental groups signed the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI). This was an agreement to develop an extended producer responsibility law for a front-end financed system to support the collection, re-use and recycling of used electronic devices. 

NEPSI also called for the development of an action plan that would establish federal legislation to enforce the law and steps to be taken during the transition period. The initiative also aimed to have a detailed and nationwide system developed by the end of 2002. 

The NEPSI process was led by the US EPA, and with Scott Cassell of the Product Stewardship Institute coordinating government delegates. Unfortunately, it did not result in model US legislation supported by all stakeholder groups.  

Subsequently, in 2004 California passed a law to recycle cell phones and Maine required computer and TV electronics EPR. These states provided early leadership and case studies for electronics product stewardship laws in the US.  

In 2003 and 2004, the Washington legislature considered bills to create a producer responsibility system for computers and TVs. The 2004 WA bill morphed into a study and advisory process convened by the Department of Ecology and coordinated by Ecology’s Jay Shepard. Although stakeholder consensus was again not reached, Ecology reported back to the legislature recommending that an EPR system be developed and financed by manufacturers. 

The Northwest Product Stewardship Council’s (NWPSC) response was to convene a smaller stakeholder group focused on the development of model legislation suitable for implementation in Washington and Oregon.  

Importantly, although initiated by the NWPSC, the process was ultimately an industry led collaborative effort. This collaborative effort was envisioned by Sego Jackson, who had been a NEPSI delegate representing local government while working for Snohomish County, and a NWPSC member. David Nightingale with WA Dept. of Ecology and NWPSC member acted as the government sounding board and attended the industry collaborative meetings in a purely advisory role. 

A number of stakeholders supporting a manufacturer-financed approach began collaborating on specific policy and potential legislation in WA. In addition to the NWPSC, key collaborators included Hewlett Packard, Washington Retail Association, Goodwill Industries, Washington Citizens for Resource Conversation (WCRC) – now known as Zero Waste Washington, Washington Conservation Action and others. The resulting 2006 bill became a priority of the Environmental Priorities Coalition. Suellen Mele, Program Director of Washington Citizens for Resource Conversation (WCRC), played a lead role in the development and passage of the law.  

Electronics producer responsibility legislation was passed in WA in 2006 and in OR in 2007. These NW electronics laws provided a model for other states in the subsequent few years as they built on lessons learned and passed similar laws. Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of product stewardship laws for electronic wastes.1 The NWPSC’s initiative and collaborative efforts led directly to model electronics product stewardship laws in Washington and Oregon and significantly influenced electronics EPR laws and policies across the US. 

States with Electronics EPR Laws