EPR commission weighs PRBA battery stewardship model amid mounting fire‑safety concerns

The Extended Producer Responsibility Commission met to consider an industry model for a producer‑funded battery stewardship program and to hear safety and implementation issues raised by state staff, the fire marshal and industry stakeholders.

Commissioners heard a PRBA presentation describing a model bill for small‑ and medium‑format batteries (portable lithium‑ion, e‑bike packs and similar consumer batteries), municipal data on current collection activity and a detailed fire‑safety briefing from the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services. No final action was taken; commissioners instructed staff to capture the comments, solicit written input and return with a refined recommendation at future meetings.

The topic matters because discarded lithium‑ion batteries are increasingly linked to fires at recycling, transfer and disposal facilities, raising immediate public‑safety and municipal‑cost concerns while industry and state officials seek a workable collection and recycling system.

PRBA model and state oversight

Mark Bulish, executive director of the Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA), presented a roughly 20‑page model bill that the trade group describes as a “true EPR” (producer financed) approach. Key elements Bulish summarized were: state review of stewardship plans and annual reports; a stewardship organization to handle billing and collection logistics for hundreds of producers; no point‑of‑sale fee to consumers under the model; limited antitrust protection for producers to coordinate on program design; and a private‑right‑of‑action to pursue large nonpaying producers if the state does not enforce.

Bulish said the model excludes a set of products or situations from the covered scope: large‑format automotive and stationary storage batteries, lead‑acid batteries above 11 pounds and implanted medical devices. The model also excludes embedded batteries for the moment while studies proceed and notes a recall‑handling distinction for recall or damaged batteries.

MassDEP municipal collection snapshot and costs

MassDEP staff summarized reported municipal activity and costs. The department’s preliminary review of municipality reports shows 269 municipalities reporting lithium battery collection, and 337 collection locations listed on an outreach/locator site (listing is opt‑in and not comprehensive). Contract management costs vary widely, the staff presentation said, with vendor pricing cited in the transcript roughly in the range of about $0.99 to $5.00 per pound for normal collections; damaged, defective or recalled batteries carry significantly higher handling costs.

Fire marshal data and safety implications

State Fire Marshal John Devine summarized new incident reporting and emerging patterns. After creating a lithium‑ion battery incident checklist and encouraging voluntary reporting, the Department of Fire Services recorded at least 135 lithium‑ion battery fires in Massachusetts in the prior year and roughly three dozen reported injuries to firefighters and civilians since late 2023. Devine said micro‑mobility devices such as e‑bikes and e‑scooters were the most frequent single device category involved in fires and that batteries damaged in transfer stations or by compaction equipment are a recurring ignition source at recycling and disposal facilities. He urged improved public awareness, safer residential collection options (for example, isolation bins with proper fire protection) and easier, safer recycling access for consumers.

Points of debate raised by commissioners and commenters

Commission discussion and public comment repeatedly returned to implementation details that will shape any final recommendation: - Curbside collection: multiple commissioners and municipal representatives said curbside pickup is attractive to consumers but difficult to cost and administer because collection costs vary by community; states that studied curbside (including Oregon’s legislative process) treated it as a premium, opt‑in service rather than a universal included cost. - Scope and exemptions: commissioners flagged embedded batteries (devices where the battery is not readily removable) as a persistent problem that the current model excludes pending study; PRBA said several jurisdictions have study provisions for embedded batteries with a study horizon into 2027. - Recalled and damaged batteries: several municipal and hazardous‑waste commenters said recall instructions commonly direct consumers to household hazardous waste centers; municipalities argued recalled batteries impose outsized municipal costs and asked that recall handling be addressed inside the program rather than left as an exemption. - Independent collectors and processors: Redwood Materials and other private recyclers urged that a stewardship scheme allow independent collectors and advanced processors to continue direct collection and not be forced to forfeit material to a single stewardship organization; PRBA and Call2Recycle representatives said program reporting, transparency and a single point of accountability are essential for state oversight and consumer messaging, and that plans must account for material flows and convenience targets. - Timing and urgency: several stakeholders urged shorter phase‑in timelines because of the fire‑safety risks and recent facility fires that led to large repair bills and downtime; others cautioned that states need time to allow producers and stewardship organizations to prepare plans and infrastructure.

No formal vote; next steps

The commission did not vote on a specific legislative recommendation. The chair and staff said they would collect written comments, revise draft language to reflect the concerns raised (including curbside, recall handling and embedded‑battery issues), and circulate updated materials to commissioners before the September cycle of meetings. Commissioners were told the full commission meets again in September (electronics topic slated for September 17) and that advisory‑group meetings would happen in the interim.

Community and municipal impacts

Municipalities, waste and recycling operators and firefighters all described operational and financial strain from battery‑related fires and from managing damaged batteries; industry groups and recyclers said a well‑designed EPR program could expand collection convenience while domestic processors seek reliable feedstock for critical minerals recovery. The transcript records multiple public commenters — including representatives of Redwood Materials, the National Waste & Recycling Association, Call2Recycle and waste haulers — urging coordination to preserve reporting and safety while avoiding unnecessary barriers to existing collection activity.

Ending

Commissioners left the meeting with no formal decision but with direction to redistribute draft materials, solicit written comments and return with a refined recommendation and supporting data. The commission’s staff and stakeholders signaled they will prioritize consumer outreach, program convenience and measures aimed at reducing fires at municipal and private facilities.