Category Archives: Producer Responsibility Programs

HB1553

HB1553 – Requires battery producers to participate in and fund a stewardship program providing for responsible environmental management of used batteries. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Street (D; 37th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Slatter, Fitzgibbon, Ortiz-Self, Berry, Walen, Thai, Taylor, Ramel, Ormsby, Pollet, Doglio, and Macri – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5144 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
A similar bill, HB2496, was introduced in the 2020 session and had a hearing in the House, but did not advance beyond that. A slightly revised version, HB1896, was introduced in 2022, eventually amended to create a study of the program rather than implementing it, and died in Rules. There are roughly 25 pages of details in the bill, and I haven’t tried to get all of them into the summary. (I’ve noted some of the changes from the 2022 bill in passing.)

Summary –
The bill would make producers responsible for creating and funding a product stewardship system for dealing with all used batteries under twenty-five pounds (with a few exceptions, including batteries in devices covered by the State’s electronics recycling program, ones that aren’t intended to be removed from products, and lead acid vehicle batteries). The bill would have people drop them off at “free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible” collection sites, and prohibit putting them in containers for landfills, incinerators, or waste-to-energy plants. (It would now allow them in mixed recycling.) The system would include education and outreach to encourage participation, but would now make retailers’ use of the materials producer organizations would have to make available voluntary. Batteries from producers who weren’t participating couldn’t be legally sold in the state.

Producers could set up one or more battery stewardship management organizations. An organization would have to have a plan approved by the Department of Ecology. Plans would have to include collection goals for their first three years “based on” the past three years of battery sales in the state by  the producers participating in the plan, and a target to recycle at least 60% of the weight of collected rechargeable batteries and 70% of others. (These are ten percent reductions from the previous bill.) Plans have to include a system to collect charges from participating producers to cover the costs of the system, and structure the charges to encourage designs that reduce the environmental impacts of products. (They’d no longer be required to adjust the financial obligations of producers in proportion to their use of recycled content in batteries.) They’d have to indicate how facilities for dealing with the batteries would be managed with health and environmental justice standards broadly equivalent to those in the US.

There’d have to be collection sites for batteries under 11 pounds within fifteen miles for at least 95% of residents and at least one additional site in areas with over 30,000 people, as well as locations in all counties and tribal lands, and in special locations like parks and on islands. Collection sites have to operate on a free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible basis for any person, business, government agency, or nonprofit organization. Programs have to use the collection sites of any retailer, wholesaler, municipality, solid waste management facility, or other entity that meet the requirements for sites and request it, but retailers don’t have to provide collection. Programs have to reimburse local governments for the costs of any facilities of theirs used as battery collection sites for the program.

Plans have to include safety training procedures for collection sites about reducing risks of spills or fires, and protocols for responding to those, for managing damaged batteries, and for collecting them at specified sites or events in each county . There have to be at least twenty-five collection sites in the state for rechargeable batteries between eleven and twenty-five pounds and other batteries between 4.4 and twenty-five pounds, with reasonable geographic dispersion, including one in each county with more than 200,000 people. (They have to be certified to handle and ship hazardous materials. )

Plans have to manage batteries by prioritizing prevention and waste reduction first, then reuse when that’s appropriate, and then recycling. They can only deal with batteries in other ways, like landfilling them, after demonstrating to Ecology that these other higher priority options aren’t technologically feasible or economically practical.

Plans have to include various education and outreach activities for consumers, retailers, and the operators of collection sites, and management organizations have to survey the public about their awareness of the requirements at the beginning of the program in 2027, and every five years after that, sharing the results with Ecology. They have to submit an annual report to Ecology, including an independent financial audit, data about battery collections and recovered materials, and a variety of other information about the program, including steps for reducing the amount they haven’t recycled if that’s relevant.

After issuing a warning, Ecology can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for violations of the law and of up to $10,000 a day for intentional, knowing, or negligent violations. In addition, management organizations can sue producers that fail to join a stewardship organization or other battery stewardship organizations that fail to meet their obligations under the act to recover the costs of dealing with those additional batteries.

Details –
The bill requires batteries to have labels disclosing their chemistry and producer; products containing batteries would have to certify they were labeled.

Plans have to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology, which is to collect a fee from producers to cover the cost of administering the program. It’s to maintain a public list of producers and brands that can be legally sold because they’re in the program.

The bill allows manufacturers to request that submitted information be exempted from public records requests, and has the Director of the Department do that if it isn’t detrimental to the public interest and is consistent with the public records law. It authorizes the Pollution Control Hearings Board to deal with appeals.

 

 

 

HB1185

HB1185 – Updating and expanding the state’s producer stewardship program for lighting products.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Hackney (D; 11th District; Renton & Tukwila) (Co-Sponsors Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Fitzgibbon, Doglio, and Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy  January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 16th. Died in Rules 2023. Returned to the House Committee on Environment and Energy for the 2024 Session. Had a hearing January 18th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute and passed out of committee January 25th. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Substitute –
The substitute in 2023 prohibited disposing of lights in most solid waste and recycling containers, and made some other small changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. In the folder with materials for the executive session, there’s a staff summary of the changes made by the substitute in 2024 at the beginning of it; they mostly dealt with lights containing mercury.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit the sale of lights containing mercury starting in 2026, with some exceptions for special purpose lights, and create penalties for violations. It would expand the current product stewardship program for lights containing mercury to include the end of life management of most lights by the same date.

The producers of lights for sale in the state would have to continue to manage and fund the current product stewardship program, expanded to cover collecting, transporting, reuse, recycling, processing and final disposition of all types of lights, including the special purpose ones containing mercury which could still be sold. The bill would eliminate the environmental handling charge which is currently added to the price of lamps containing mercury to fund the program; it would be directly funded by the producers. (However, they still wouldn’t be responsible for the costs of curbside or mail-back collection programs, except for transporting and processing the lights from those. They would still have to fund and manage free collection sites and pay for the transportation and processing of lights from those.

At least 90% of the state’s residents would have to have a permanent collection site within 15 miles, and an additional site would be required for every 30,000 residents in urban areas. The program would have to provide reasonable opportunities for people in rural areas farther from the required sites to drop off unwanted lights at collection events. The bill specifies additional requirements for outreach and consumer education about the expended program, including a survey about public awareness of it at least every five years. It adds specifications about the safe handling of lights containing mercury, and specifies that plans have to prioritize recycling of other materials to the extent that’s practicable. It would now require programs to include contingency plans to keep providing services if a stewardship organization stopped.

Stewardship programs would be required to design their charges to producers to encourage the use of recycled content and discourage the use of undesirable materials. They’d have to reimburse local governments for the costs when a local government facility or solid waste handling facility served as a collection location. The bill also adds provisions for Ecology’s review and approval of stewardship organization’ plans, and revises Ecology’s procedures for dealing with violations to adjust them to the expanded system. It drops the current law’s provisions for reporting on the availability and purchasing of energy efficient lights in the state.

SB5154

SB5154– Improving solid waste management outcomes. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Senator Rolfes (D; 23rd District; Bainbridge Island) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen)
Current status – Completed a continued hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology  January 18th. Replaced by a substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Ways and Means. Did not have a hearing by the fiscal cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB1131 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments – The bill is 143 pages long, so trying to summarize the details seems ill advised. I’ve tried to cover the important points.

Amended Substitute –
Staff summarized the changes made by the substitute in four pages at the beginning of it. The amendment struck and replaced all the sections about the optional beverage deposit return program. (I think all these changes replicated the ones made earlier in the House companion bill;  the staff summary of the changes in the House beverage deposit provisions is at the beginning of that..)

Summary –
The bill would create a system funded and managed by the producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use. It would create requirements for postconsumer recycled content. It would create a deposit program as an optional alternative for managing beverage containers.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program, and meet performance targets improving over time for reducing the production of plastic components, the reuse of collected materials, and their recycling (but not for simply collecting materials, I think.). Producers would also fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues and the ongoing work of a new solid waste advisory council. Detailed plans for managing covered materials, meeting a long list of requirements, would be due by July 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology); reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2028. (Products couldn’t be labeled as recyclable unless they were covered by a program.)

A consultant would do the needs assessment, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The consultant would also recommend performance targets designed to be reachable statewide by 2032. (As far as I can see, organizations would establish their own targets in their plans.) The advisory council and stakeholders would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Plans would have to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and the advisory council. Plans would include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing them. and consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Plans would include ways to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging. They’d have to eco-modulate setting the fees for producers to encourage the use of packaging designs that reduce products’ environmental impacts. They’d have to be updated regularly.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover used materials, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. Organizations would have to report to Ecology on their activities each year.

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There are detailed requirements for collection and management of materials, and for reporting by producer organizations and processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to household cleaning product containers; personal care product packages, most beverage containers; tubs; thermoform containers; single-use cups; and cannabis containers or packaging materials that were made of plastic. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2024 and 2036. The producer responsibility organizations representing the producers of these products would report to Ecology annually on their performance. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet the requirements. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic.

Beverage Container Deposit Program –

Producer responsibility organizations would be allowed to create a 10¢ deposit return system for glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans as an alternative to managing beverage containers through the recycling requirements. (Cartons, foil pouches, drink boxes, metal container that need a tool to open, and containers for dairy milk or formula wouldn’t be included.) This system would be created if distributors of the majority of beverages in qualifying containers formed a distributor responsibility organization; in that case, all the distributors of those containers would have to join that organization, or meet the requirements for an organization themselves. Ecology would implement, administer, and enforce the program, and collect a fee covering those costs; the distributors would pay for operating the system, and for half the costs of the advisory council and the needs study. Organizations would have to submit detailed plans for deposit return programs for Ecology’s approval, meeting a variety of requirements. Plans would have to include education and outreach; stakeholder consultations; methods for paying the refund to consumers, governments, and processing facilities returning containers; an additional premium for containers returned by non-profits serving very low income individuals who rely on refunds; and at least 270 free convenient bulk drop-off locations for bagged containers around the state, convenient to places selling beverages in containers. Dealers wouldn’t be required to accept bags or provide drop-off sites, though. If organizations contract with service providers to meet their obligations, there are labor and social justice standards for those. Unclaimed refunds would have to be invested in operations and infrastructure supporting the reuse and recycling of qualifying beverage containers. By 2031, an organization would have to demonstrate that all the containers in its program were designed to be reusable or recyclable, and there would be specified gradually increasing requirements for the percentages of containers that were actually recycled or reused between 2028 and 2035. There would be detailed reporting requirements. Ecology would also collect funds from distributor organizations for a five year program to reimburse curbside collection programs for revenue losses resulting from reductions in the number of containers in those bins.

In addition –
By December 2025, Ecology would have to complete a study of options for improving the convenience of state product stewardship, takeback, and producer responsibility programs, including establishing centralized takeback centers for consumers; and make policy recommendations to the Legislature about improving the environmental end of life management of products covered by these. Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

The bill also amends details of some existing laws, including ones about solid waste in general, ones about the regulation of some solid waste companies by the UTC, and ones about cannabis packaging, to take account of the additional activities of producer responsibility organizations and beverage distributors that the bill envisions.

HB1131

HB1131– Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Doglio & 16 other Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 17th; replaced by a substitute and amended by the prime sponsor February 2nd, then passed out of committee. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 15th. Replaced by a second substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 21st. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5154 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments – The bill is 143 pages long, so trying to summarize the details seems ill advised. I’ve tried to cover the important points.

Changes made in House Environment and Energy –
There’s a several page summary by staff of the changes in the substitute at the beginning of that. The amendment struck and replaced all the sections about the optional beverage deposit return program. There’s a three page staff summary of those changes at the end of the amendment.

Changes in Appropriations –
Staff summarized the additional changes in the 2nd substitute in several pages at the beginning of it. (The amendment exempted packaging for certain insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides from the requirements.)

Summary –
The bill would create a system funded and managed by the producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use. It would create requirements for postconsumer recycled content. It would create a deposit program as an optional alternative for managing beverage containers.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program, and meet performance targets improving over time for reducing the production of plastic components, the reuse of collected materials, and their recycling (but not for simply collecting materials, I think.). Producers would also fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues and the ongoing work of a new solid waste advisory council. Detailed plans for managing covered materials, meeting a long list of requirements, would be due by July 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology); reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2028. (Products couldn’t be labeled as recyclable unless they were covered by a program.)

A consultant would do the needs assessment, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The consultant would also recommend performance targets designed to be reachable statewide by 2032. (As far as I can see, organizations would establish their own targets in their plans.) The advisory council and stakeholders would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Plans would have to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and the advisory council. Plans would include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing them. and consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Plans would include ways to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging. They’d have to eco-modulate setting the fees for producers to encourage the use of packaging designs that reduce products’ environmental impacts. They’d have to be updated regularly.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover used materials, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. Organizations would have to report to Ecology on their activities each year.

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There are detailed requirements for collection and management of materials, and for reporting by producer organizations and processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to household cleaning product containers; personal care product packages, most beverage containers; tubs; thermoform containers; single-use cups; and cannabis containers or packaging materials that were made of plastic. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2024 and 2036. The producer responsibility organizations representing the producers of these products would report to Ecology annually on their performance. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet the requirements. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic.

Beverage Container Deposit Program –

Producer responsibility organizations would be allowed to create a 10¢ deposit return system for glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans as an alternative to managing beverage containers through the recycling requirements. (Cartons, foil pouches, drink boxes, metal container that need a tool to open, and containers for dairy milk or formula wouldn’t be included.) This system would be created if distributors of the majority of beverages in qualifying containers formed a distributor responsibility organization; in that case, all the distributors of those containers would have to join that organization, or meet the requirements for an organization themselves. Ecology would implement, administer, and enforce the program, and collect a fee covering those costs; the distributors would pay for operating the system, and for half the costs of the advisory council and the needs study. Organizations would have to submit detailed plans for deposit return programs for Ecology’s approval, meeting a variety of requirements. Plans would have to include education and outreach; stakeholder consultations; methods for paying the refund to consumers, governments, and processing facilities returning containers; an additional premium for containers returned by non-profits serving very low income individuals who rely on refunds; and at least 270 free convenient bulk drop-off locations for bagged containers around the state, convenient to places selling beverages in containers. Dealers wouldn’t be required to accept bags or provide drop-off sites, though. If organizations contract with service providers to meet their obligations, there are labor and social justice standards for those. Unclaimed refunds would have to be invested in operations and infrastructure supporting the reuse and recycling of qualifying beverage containers. By 2031, an organization would have to demonstrate that all the containers in its program were designed to be reusable or recyclable, and there would be specified gradually increasing requirements for the percentages of containers that were actually recycled or reused between 2028 and 2035. There would be detailed reporting requirements. Ecology would also collect funds from distributor organizations for a five year program to reimburse curbside collection programs for revenue losses resulting from reductions in the number of containers in those bins.

In addition –
By December 2025, Ecology would have to complete a study of options for improving the convenience of state product stewardship, takeback, and producer responsibility programs, including establishing centralized takeback centers for consumers; and make policy recommendations to the Legislature about improving the environmental end of life management of products covered by these. Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

The bill also amends details of some existing laws, including ones about solid waste in general, ones about the regulation of some solid waste companies by the UTC, and ones about cannabis packaging, to take account of the additional activities of producer responsibility organizations and beverage distributors that the bill envisions.

HB1164

HB1164 – Creates a producer responsibility program for appliance refrigerants and insulating foam.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon )
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 16th. Still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would make the parties categorized as producers responsible for creating and funding a stewardship system for dealing with the refrigerants and insulating foam in a wide range of used residential, commercial, and institutional appliances. (It excludes appliances over 1,000 pounds, those that are integral parts of structures, like ice rink refrigeration systems and commercial or multifamily central air conditioning systems, and the air conditioners in vehicles and other mobile applications.) Producers would have to participate in a stewardship organization with a plan to sell covered appliances in the state. The Department of Ecology would implement the program, approve plans, set fees to recover its administrative costs from producers, and enforce the bill’s requirements.

Plans would need to be submitted by 2027 and include methods for achieving the bill’s performance goals; education and outreach plans for retailers and consumers; mechanisms for collecting covered appliances and paying the plan’s financial incentives for turning them in; describe how the program will use consistent best environmental practices in managing pieces of collected appliances; identify brokers, transporters, processors, and facilities to be used by the program; and describe the methods for financing it, including modulating producers’ fees to encourage recycling, resource conservation, the use of low emission refrigerants, and other environmental goals. (The bill exempts an organization’s receipts from its charges for producer members from the B&O tax.) After five years Ecology could require programs that were not meeting performance goals to submit revised plans.

The bill’s performance requirements begin at different levels in 2027 and 2028, between 30% and 75% of the in-state sales for different categories of appliances in baseline years set by Ecology. They increase by 5% a year until they reach 70% to 90%, depending on the category.

Stewardship organizations would have to provide for the free collection of covered appliances directly or at sites, including at least one permanent site in each county. They’d need to provide payments to consumers (in addition to any energy efficiency or utility incentives) that Ecology agreed were sufficient to incentivize the use of the program and to discourage illegal dumping or venting of refrigerants or other pollutants. They’d be required to reimburse local governments for the costs of using a local facility or solid waste handling site as a collection location. Retailers would have to make information provided by organizations about the program available to customers, and could choose to provide collection sites.

There are various reporting requirements, and a provision for maintaining the confidentiality of submitted information. Ecology could take a variety of steps to deal with organizations that were not meeting their obligations, including impose fines of up to $1,000 per violation per day, after a warning, and up to $10,000 per violation per day for the second and each subsequent violation. Appeals would be handled by the Pollution Control Hearings Board.

SB5144

SB5144 – Requires battery producers to participate in and fund a stewardship program providing for responsible environmental management of used batteries.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Stanford (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsor Nguyen – D)
Current status – Passed by both houses. Senate concurred in House’s amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a staff report on the bill.
HB1553 is a companion bill in the House.

In the House – Passed

Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy March 14th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 21st. Had a hearing in Appropriations March 30th. Replaced by another striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 31st. Referred to Rules, amended on the floor, and passed by the House April 7th.
The changes made by the striker are summarized by staff in a couple of pages at the end of it. The changes made by the second striker are summarized by staff at the end of that. The amendment removed Ecology’s authority to adopt rules by 2030 establishing a stewardship program for several other kinds of batteries, including large format ones. The floor amendment dropped various references to fees and civil actions about those batteries.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology January 24th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 7th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Replaced by a second substitute; passed out of committee and referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the Senate March 7th.

Changes in the Senate –
The changes made by the substitute are summarized by staff at the beginning of it. An amendment exempted the improper disposal of covered batteries in a noncommercial or residential setting from the penalties. The second substitute made some minor changes in the definitions and the treatment of producers.  The changes made by the amendment on the Senate floor are summarized by staff at the beginning of that.

Comments –
A similar bill, HB2496, was introduced in the 2020 session and had a hearing in the House, but did not advance beyond that. A slightly revised version, HB1896, was introduced in 2022, eventually amended to create a study of the program rather than implementing it, and died in Rules. There are roughly 25 pages of details in the bill, and I haven’t tried to get all of them into the summary. (I’ve noted some of the changes from the 2022 bill in passing.)

Changes in the Senate –

Summary –
The bill would make producers responsible for creating and funding a product stewardship system for dealing with all used batteries under twenty-five pounds (with a few exceptions, including batteries in devices covered by the State’s electronics recycling program, ones that aren’t intended to be removed from products, and lead acid vehicle batteries). The bill would have people drop them off at “free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible” collection sites, and prohibit putting them in containers for landfills, incinerators, or waste-to-energy plants. (It would now allow them in mixed recycling.) The system would include education and outreach to encourage participation, but would now make retailers’ use of the materials producer organizations would have to make available voluntary. Batteries from producers who weren’t participating couldn’t be legally sold in the state.

Producers could set up one or more battery stewardship management organizations. An organization would have to have a plan approved by the Department of Ecology. Plans would have to include collection goals for their first three years “based on” the past three years of battery sales in the state by  the producers participating in the plan, and a target to recycle at least 60% of the weight of collected rechargeable batteries and 70% of others. (These are ten percent reductions from the previous bill.) Plans have to include a system to collect charges from participating producers to cover the costs of the system, and structure the charges to encourage designs that reduce the environmental impacts of products. (They’d no longer be required to adjust the financial obligations of producers in proportion to their use of recycled content in batteries.) They’d have to indicate how facilities for dealing with the batteries would be managed with health and environmental justice standards broadly equivalent to those in the US.

There’d have to be collection sites for batteries under 11 pounds within fifteen miles for at least 95% of residents and at least one additional site in areas with over 30,000 people, as well as locations in all counties and tribal lands, and in special locations like parks and on islands. Collection sites have to operate on a free, continuous, convenient, visible, and accessible basis for any person, business, government agency, or nonprofit organization. Programs have to use the collection sites of any retailer, wholesaler, municipality, solid waste management facility, or other entity that meet the requirements for sites and request it, but retailers don’t have to provide collection. Programs have to reimburse local governments for the costs of any facilities of theirs used as battery collection sites for the program.

Plans have to include safety training procedures for collection sites about reducing risks of spills or fires, and protocols for responding to those, for managing damaged batteries, and for collecting them at specified sites or events in each county . There have to be at least twenty-five collection sites in the state for rechargeable batteries between eleven and twenty-five pounds and other batteries between 4.4 and twenty-five pounds, with reasonable geographic dispersion, including one in each county with more than 200,000 people. (They have to be certified to handle and ship hazardous materials. )

Plans have to manage batteries by prioritizing prevention and waste reduction first, then reuse when that’s appropriate, and then recycling. They can only deal with batteries in other ways, like landfilling them, after demonstrating to Ecology that these other higher priority options aren’t technologically feasible or economically practical.

Plans have to include various education and outreach activities for consumers, retailers, and the operators of collection sites, and management organizations have to survey the public about their awareness of the requirements at the beginning of the program in 2027, and every five years after that, sharing the results with Ecology. They have to submit an annual report to Ecology, including an independent financial audit, data about battery collections and recovered materials, and a variety of other information about the program, including steps for reducing the amount they haven’t recycled if that’s relevant.

After issuing a warning, Ecology can impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for violations of the law and of up to $10,000 a day for intentional, knowing, or negligent violations. In addition, management organizations can sue producers that fail to join a stewardship organization or other battery stewardship organizations that fail to meet their obligations under the act to recover the costs of dealing with those additional batteries.

Details –
The bill requires batteries to have labels disclosing their chemistry and producer; products containing batteries would have to certify they were labeled.

Plans have to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology, which is to collect a fee from producers to cover the cost of administering the program. It’s to maintain a public list of producers and brands that can be legally sold because they’re in the program.

The bill allows manufacturers to request that submitted information be exempted from public records requests, and has the Director of the Department do that if it isn’t detrimental to the public interest and is consistent with the public records law. It authorizes the Pollution Control Hearings Board to deal with appeals.