HB1900 – Implementing strategies to achieve higher solid waste recycling rates.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fey (D; 27th District; Tacoma) (Co-Sponsors Reeves, Walen, Rule, Chapman, Bronoske, and Wylie; Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy at 8:00 AM January 11th. Still in committee at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
See also HB2049.

Summary –
The bill would expand the State’s current postconsumer recycled content requirements to cover more containers for household cleaning and personal care products; the caps and lids on beverage containers; polypropylene tubs; various single use plastic cups; and PET containers for consumable goods like clam shells and egg cartons and for durable goods. The new requirements begin on different dates for different products, and increase in steps. It would add the percentage of postconsumer recycled content they contain to the information required on the packaging of plastic trash bags. One way a producer can currently qualify for a de minimis exemption from the requirements is by having only a single category of a covered product for sale in the state with revenue less than $1 million a year; the amended law would require global gross revenue less than $5 million a year as well as annual total resin use less than a ton to qualify. (The current standard seems to have been left in the new definitions section at this point, though.)

The bill would require the Department of Ecology to produce a study by 2027 to allow the public to determine whether a particular material handled in curbside programs or other solid waste facilities is recyclable in the state and routinely becomes feedstock for the production of new products or packaging. (The study’s also to identify materials and forms that aren’t sorted for recycling and are considered contaminants.) The research is to be updated in 2030, and at least every five years after that. Material would be considered recyclable in the state if the material in that form was collected for recycling by jurisdictions with at least 60% of the state’s population, was sorted into defined streams for recycling by large volume transfer or by facilities that serve at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, and was sent on to be reclaimed to state standards. To count as recyclable, most packaging and products would have to be designed to avoid any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recycling. Demonstrating that at least 75% of a product or packaging sorted or aggregated in the state was reprocessed into new products or packaging would also qualify it as recyclable. Initially, a product or packaging that was not collected in curbside programs would be considered recyclable if at least 60% of it had enough commercial value to be marketed for recycling and transported to a facility to be sorted and aggregated into defined streams by material and form; that requirement would increase to 75% in 2033. (Products and packaging would also count as recyclable if they complied with a Federal or State program about their recyclability or disposal that was established after 2025 and Ecology’s director determined that including them wouldn’t increase contamination of curbside recycling or deceive the public.)

Ecology would develop and publish a list of recyclable materials suitable for curbside collection and one of materials suitable for residential drop-off collection. The bill specifies ten materials to be included in the initial list for curbside collection, and two for drop-offs. It would require the department to update the lists at least every five years, after consulting with the advisory committee, and after considering a variety of factors the bill specifies.

The bill would raise the State’s goal for recycling of covered products to 60%. It would set a goal for a 50% reduction in the sale and use of packaging that was not recyclable under the law by 2030, and a 75% reduction by 2035. It would require tracking and reporting on progress toward those, and it would have Ecology hire a consultant to conduct a statewide study to determine the costs and investments needed to achieve a 60% overall recycling rate for the materials listed as suitable for residential collection by the department. The consultant would consider each jurisdiction planning under the solid waste management act, evaluating its current capacity and the gaps, needs and costs for it to achieve the bill’s performance targets. The final scope of the study is supposed to be determined after considering comments and recommendations from stakeholders, each jurisdiction, and the advisory committee, but Section 208 of the bill specifies several pages of factors that the study’s required to take into account.

If funding were specifically provided for it, Ecology would contract with with a research university or an independent consultant to study the plastic resin markets, analyzing market conditions and opportunities in the state’s recycling industry for meeting the bill’s minimum postconsumer recycled content requirements, and determining the data needs and tracking opportunities to support a more effective, fact-based public understanding of the industry.

The bill would add a committee with representatives from a long list of specified stakeholders to advise and make recommendations on the program to Ecology. After considering recommendations, the director of Ecology would appoint members, with as much diversity of various kinds as was practical.The committee would elect its own chair and vice-chair and create its bylaws.

Starting in 2028, the bill would prohibit consumer packaging and paper products from making any deceptive or misleading claims about their recyclability in the state through symbols like the chasing arrows or statements. (However, it doesn’t allow local jurisdictions to restrict the distribution or sale of covered products because of symbols or statements implying they’re recyclable if those were required by some other state or by Federal laws or regulations or Federal Trade Commission green guides; if they were part of some widely adopted third-party system; or if they incorporated by reference the ASTM standards for coding resins…)

The bill requires Ecology to establish annual fees paid by producers to cover the costs of administering the postconsumer recycled content program. It makes the other work it assigns to the Department eligible for funding from the cap and invest program. It requires the UTC to consult with jurisdictions and regulated collection companies, then report to the Legislature on how to improve processes for providing discounts for low-income customers, including ways to add customers and make administration easier.

Producers of covered products would have to register their products and brand names with Ecology individually or through a group’s representative, and would have to report annually on the pounds of covered products they’d sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state. The bill would require reports from producers to the State including certification of compliance by a nationally recognized independent third party with the names, locations, and contact information of all their sources and suppliers of postconsumer recycled content, the quantities and dates of their purchases, and how that material was obtained. It would allow producers to petition Ecology to review and adjust the required content percentages for a type of container or product or category for the following year; Ecology would have to consider a number of factors in the process, and the producers would have to supply the department with the information needed for the review.  After providing two written warnings, the department would be authorized to fine producers that were out of compliance with the bill’s registration or labeling requirements up to $1,000 a day. Each year it would be authorized to penalize producers twenty cents a pound for any difference between the required minimum percentage of postconsumer recycled plastic in a given product and the percentage actually used in the previous year, though it could grant producers a reduction in the penalty given certain conditions.