Framework in North America

United States    California | Minnesota | Oregon | Washington
Canada    Canada-wide EPR Framework | British Columbia | Manitoba | Ontario 

Framework EPR in the United States

California

• Following a decision by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in 2006 to remove the hazardous waste exemption on household hazardous wastes thus banning them from disposal, then a ban on sharps disposal in September 2008, local governments are increasingly interested in a producer responsibility framework to address the increase in management costs.
• In February 2007 CIWMB adopted Strategic Direction 5 that signals a commitment to promote producer responsibility in the state.
• In June 2007, heard a contractor’s report titled Framework for Evaluating End of Life Management Systems in California by R3 Consulting Group which recommended implementation of an EPR Policy Framework.
• CIWMB issued an Overall Framework for an Extended Producer Responsibility System in California in September 2007 and further refined in January 2008 that outlines staff recommendations for an approach to producer responsibility. The board has held several public workshops on the framework as well as specific products.
• CIWMB may seek legislative authorization for the framework approach during the 2009 legislative session and legislation may also be introduced by legislators in response to requests by the California Product Stewardship Council. Product specific legislation following the framework approach is also anticipated. CIWMB documents related to specific agency legislation is not publicly available.

Resources:  

• CIWMB has produced extensive documents on framework EPR policy approach. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/EPR/
• CPSC’s web site has information on EPR from the local government perspective. See http://www.calpsc.org/policies/state/epr-framework.html

Legislation:

• The California Product Stewardship Act, AB 283 (D- Chesbro) was introduced February 13, 2009. It is developed from the CIWMB’s framework EPR policy.  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0251-0300/ab_283_bill_20090212_introduced.pdf
• Los Angeles County has also drafted EPR Framework language that may be introduced in the 2009 session.
  
  
• Top

Minnesota

•  Minnesota passed EPR legislation for electronics in 2007.
• In 2008, the Minnesota legislature passed legislation requiring the Agency to develop a report and recommendations on a framework approach to product stewardship (see study bill example above). The product stewardship recommendations report was submitted to the Legislature on January 15, 2009. As part of the report’s development, the MPCA hosted two public meetings to solicit input on several concepts and questions pertaining to the product stewardship study and recommendations report. In addition, the MPCA met with individual stakeholder groups.
• Framework legislation and/or product specific legislation following a framework approach may be introduced in the 2009 session.

Resources:  

• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s product stewardship website:
  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/stewardship/index.cfm
• The Product Stewardship Recommendation Report (Jan. 2009) is at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/stewardship/study.cfm
• Contact: Garth Hickle, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (651) 757-2434; garth.hickle@state.mn.us

Oregon

• Oregon passed EPR legislation for electronics in 2007. 
• A legislative concept was approved by the Environmental Quality Commission at its meeting in May 2008. The DEQ issued a draft framework proposal in September 2008 and has held three public meetings seeking input.
• DEQ is now drafting a proposal for a producer responsibility framework for potential legislative consideration in 2009, coordinating with the work in the state of Washington.
• Framework legislation is anticipated in Oregon in the 2009 session as well as product specific legislation following the EPR formula.

Resources:  

• Oregon’s HB3060, introduced February 27, 2009.  The Product Stewardship framework bill names mercury-containing lights and rechargeable batteries as initial product areas, and designates the state Environmental Quality Commission to adopt recommendations to the legislative body for future products.   A companion bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate.
• Oregon has produced excellent background documents, some of which explore key issues and policy options. They can be found at http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/productstewardship.htm

Washington

• Washington passed EPR legislation for electronics in 2006.
• In 2007, the Governor’s Climate Advisory Team included product stewardship framework policy as an element in one of its most promising strategies for addressing greenhouse gases.
• This team was reconstituted as the CAT (Climate Action Team) in 2008. The BWIWG (Beyond Waste Implementation Work Group) serving the CAT was tasked with developing and recommending framework legislation for product stewardship. Utilizing and refining work done by the NWPSC, they developed model framework EPR legislation, and provided an adapted draft showing a product by product approach with fluorescent lighting used as the sample product. These drafts were accepted by the CAT and forwarded on to the Governor, state agencies, and the legislature through the CAT’s reports.

Resources:  

• The Washington model bills developed through the Governor’s Climate Action Team can be viewed on page 65 at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2008CAT_iwg_bw.htm

Legislation:

Framework EPR in Canada

Canada-Wide Action Plan for EPR

Resources:  

• Proposed Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility http://www.ccme.ca/ourwork/waste.html?category_id=128
• Extended Producer Responsibility Product Evaluation Tool http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1397_epr_guidance_manual_e.pdf

British Columbia

• Authorized by the statutory Environmental Management Act, the province has implemented a variety of stewardship programs, beginning with a regulation for managing leftover paint in 1994 with other regulations implemented soon thereafter.
• The province currently has stewardship programs in place for nine product categories: beverage containers; tires; used oil; electronics; paint; solvents and flammable liquids; gasoline; pesticides; and pharmaceuticals.

Resources:  

• British Columbia Industry Product Stewardship Business Plan: 2002/2003 – 2004/2005 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/history/busplan.htm
• Recycling Regulation (B.C. Reg. 449/2004) www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg//reg/E/EnvMgmt/449_2004.htm

Manitoba

• The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act (WRAP) enacted in 1994 provides the statutory support for product stewardship regulations in Manitoba. The first stewardship program to move forward in the province assessed a two-cent levy on beverage containers to finance the collection and recycling of “blue box” materials.
• The province is moving forward with a suite of product stewardship regulations under the WRAP Act to address household hazardous waste, packaging and printed paper, and waste electronics.

Ontario

• The Waste Diversion Act, passed by the Parliament in Ontario in 2002, authorized the Minister of the Environment to designate products or materials for a stewardship program through a Program Request Letter that outlines the details required. Following the program request letter, the industry funding organization prepares a stewardship plan.
• Program Request Letters have been issued for blue box waste (2004), municipal hazardous or special waste (2007), waste electronics (2006), and used tires (2008).

 Top