Committee hears state data and Canadian EPR model as Ecology and experts discuss packaging extended producer responsibility

Legislators heard a work session on recycling policy, extended producer responsibility (EPR) and state recycling data that examined national trends, Washington’s recovery rates, and a functioning full‑scale EPR program in British Columbia.

Jennifer Schultz, program principal with the National Conference of State Legislatures, summarized national EPR activity and trends. She told the committee that more states have adopted EPR laws across a widening set of product categories, and said “EPR is a policy approach that assigns producers greater responsibility for the end of life management of the products they introduce to the market and encourages innovations in product design.” Her overview noted recent state activity on packaging, batteries and electronics and cited New Jersey’s 2024 law as the first U.S. EPR law that explicitly included EV batteries.

Peter Lyon, manager of Ecology’s Solid Waste Management Program, provided Washington‑specific data and policy analysis. He said Ecology’s recent consultants’ work estimates Washington’s residential packaging recycling rate at roughly 40% (the agency’s broader recovery rate is higher because it includes large commercial streams such as asphalt, concrete and scrap metal). Lyon summarized consultant findings that a packaging EPR program could boost the residential recycling rate to about 65% after five years, increase access to consistent curbside service for up to roughly 500,000 additional households, and reduce the volume of recyclable materials sent to landfills. He cited unpublished and consultant reports (Eunomia, Dec. 2023) and told the committee Ecology supports further consideration of producer‑funded packaging programs based on those studies.

Representatives from British Columbia’s Recycle BC described a decade of experience running a province‑wide packaging and paper EPR program. Maya Rusanowski (manager for stakeholder relations, Recycle BC) said the program reported a recovery rate “just shy of 80%” in 2023, collected more than 200,000 metric tonnes that year, and reported that 94.3% of the collected material was managed by recycling; the program reported that 98% of plastics collected from residents were recycled and that 99% of collected material stayed in British Columbia or North America. Recycle BC representatives described their mixed‑collection network (curbside, multifamily, depot), contamination monitoring and an outcomes‑based regulatory framework under British Columbia’s Environmental Management Act.

Committee members asked about data collection methods, contamination in the blue bin, the role of markets outside the state, and costs. Lyon said Ecology’s recovery rate relies on self‑reported data from facilities; the agency lacks full sales data to estimate total material generated and cannot currently track end‑market destinations after MRFs sell processed material. Lyon also described recent market disruptions in Washington — including the July 2024 closure of a major Seattle glass manufacturer and several paper mill closures in 2023–24 — and said those changes have created stress on local end markets and infrastructure.

Speakers emphasized differences between large commercial recovered materials and the household packaging stream that EPR for packaging would target. Ecology presented consultant estimates that a packaging EPR program could yield higher recycling rates across material types (for example, rigid plastics from roughly 15% to 49%; flexible plastics from 1% to 14%; glass from 31% to about 60%). Lyon cited an estimate that if half of currently landfilled recyclables were recovered, it could generate about 8,500 jobs and roughly $9 million in tax revenue (Ecology study figures).

Presenters from Recycle BC described program features committee members identified as useful: a standardized statewide list of acceptable recyclables, producer‑funded curbside service for all households, coordinated depot networks for hard‑to‑collect items, contamination prevention campaigns and flexible, outcomes‑focused regulation rather than prescriptive operational mandates.

No action was taken; the session was advisory. Ecology and committee members discussed the option of additional studies and technical bills to address data gaps and implementation mechanics.

Why it matters: Washington’s current recovery depends heavily on commercial recovered material; packaging EPR targets household packaging and could change who pays for curbside service, what items are accepted statewide, and how markets for recycled materials are developed. The session presented concrete estimates and a high‑profile example from Recycle BC that legislators and staff can use in drafting future policy language.