Vermont DEC outlines how extended producer responsibility programs work and limits of state role

Matt Chapman, director of the Waste Management and Prevention Division at the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, told the Natural Resources & Energy committee on Thursday that extended producer responsibility, or EPR, programs shift end‑of‑life financial and operational responsibility for hard‑to‑manage products “onto the person who made it in the first place.” Chapman briefed lawmakers on existing state programs and how they are run.

The discussion matters because EPR programs reduce municipal disposal burdens for products such as electronics, paint and batteries and can change who pays for disposal and how manufacturers participate. The committee heard details about program design choices that affect convenience, cost and enforcement.

Chapman said Vermont currently has five active EPR programs covering electronics, mercury thermostats, paint, mercury‑containing light bulbs and batteries. He described three broad program models: manufacturer‑run stewardship organizations (often established as nonprofits), a state‑administered model used for electronic waste, and advanced consumer fee models (a fee paid at the time of purchase, used for paint). On the stewardship model, Chapman said manufacturers “create a collection network, fund that collection network, [and] manage the transportation” of materials after collection.

On thermostats, Chapman said the state has run a thermostat stewardship program since about 2010 that pays a $5 bounty to collectors when they turn in mercury thermostats for recycling. He said collections typically occur at municipal transfer stations and at some retail outlets. On mercury‑containing lamps, which the state began covering in 2012, Chapman noted those items are hazardous waste and require special handling; manufacturers administer that collection system and municipalities and retailers serve as drop‑off points.

Electronic waste was described as a different model: manufacturers did not agree to a unified stewardship program before the law was enacted, Chapman said, so the state contracts and administers collection, transport and recycling and bills manufacturers based on national sales. He said manufacturers may file an “opt‑out plan” to operate independently but must meet the same service level; that option has been used only rarely.

Paint is run through a nonprofit called PaintCare and is financed by a fee charged at purchase; Chapman described paint as “EPR adjacent” because consumers do not receive a refund when they return leftover paint but disposal is free at the point of return. He said PaintCare covers the cost of collection and management for leftover paint and that some latex paint is recycled and resold in limited circumstances.

The battery program began with alkaline battery coverage in 2015 and was recently expanded to require manufacturers of rechargeable consumer batteries to participate. Chapman said the program covers primary (single‑use) batteries and small rechargeable batteries commonly found in consumer devices; automotive and large industrial batteries are not included under the current law.

Committee members asked how the state enforces manufacturer participation. Chapman said DEC has traditional enforcement authority and a practical “hammer”: the agency can bar retailers that do not participate from selling regulated products in Vermont. He said performance standards are set for each program and that municipalities and solid‑waste management entities remain important local partners for collection and outreach.

On costs, Chapman said EPRs move the direct cost of managing waste streams from municipal property taxpayers to product manufacturers and that the marketplace means costs are often spread regionally or nationally rather than borne uniquely by Vermonters. He told the committee that manufacturers are incentivized by EPR to redesign products to be less toxic and easier to manage at end of life.

Chapman concluded by urging caution about starting large new EPR programs — especially for packaging or printed materials — while the agency is still implementing recently enacted programs. He said DEC staff will provide the committee with proposed technical corrections to the household hazardous waste stewardship law and are available to brief lawmakers on program details.

Ending: Committee members thanked Chapman and discussed follow‑up; Chapman said he would provide an updated set of statutory changes to the committee chair and that DEC staff are available to assist with stakeholder outreach and technical work as the legislature considers adjustments or new programs.