Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paint Stewardship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee weighs PaintCare take‑back program; members ask sponsors to drop explicit fee language
Summary
The subcommittee reviewed a paint stewardship bill modeled on PaintCare programs in other states. Members and agency staff asked sponsors to remove explicit fee amounts from statute, discussed universal‑waste designation for oil‑based paint, and sought clearer language on departmental oversight and transporter licensing.
The House Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee considered a paint stewardship bill that would establish a PaintCare take‑back program for post‑consumer paint. Sponsors said the program operates in other states and diverts paint and cans from landfills: they cited tens of millions of gallons collected nationally and millions of pounds of material kept out of landfills in nearby states. The bill as drafted included a per‑gallon fee figure; multiple committee members and the bill sponsor said they preferred to remove the explicit fee number from statute and instead let the producers’ stewardship organization set the fee under a statutory funding mechanism.
Department of Environmental Services hazardous‑waste staff explained how a universal‑waste designation would allow retail collection without forcing every participating retailer to become a regulated hazardous‑waste generator. Todd Piskovitz, hazardous waste management bureau administrator at DES, told the panel that oil‑based paints and solvents are hazardous under state law and that a universal‑waste classification eases retail collection while preserving safe management: licensed hazardous‑waste transporters would still be required to move consolidated material.
The subcommittee discussed liability protections for retailers that accept paint for collection. DES staff said the bill’s language was intended to relieve small retail locations of strict hazardous‑waste generator liability when they follow the program’s rules but would not absolve them of cleanup responsibilities for spills.
Jeremy Jones, director for extended producer responsibility at the American Coatings Association, said the industry’s program is typically financed by a small per‑gallon charge included in the wholesale price; manufacturers have used similar mechanisms in other states to prevent free‑riders. Sponsors and industry representatives agreed to remove the fee amount and to return with amended language. The subcommittee requested an amendment that omits a specific fee number, clarifies DES oversight and transporter requirements, and confirms the program will be administered by the producer stewardship organization rather than by state appropriation.
The subcommittee asked sponsors to provide revised language before the next meeting so members could consider a streamlined, revenue‑neutral implementation that preserves environmental protection and retailer participation.
