Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears expansion of paint stewardship to aerosols and related products; counties push for convenience and packaging rules
Summary
A substitute to expand Washington’s paint stewardship program would add thinners, removers, aerosols and certain nonindustrial coatings; sponsors and industry backed the expansion while counties, Ecology and hazardous‑waste programs requested clearer convenience standards, packaging inclusion and compensation for local facilities.
Jake Lipsen, staff to the House Environment & Energy Committee, told the panel HB 23‑01 would extend the architectural paint stewardship law to coating‑related products (thinners, additives, removers in 5‑gallon or smaller containers), aerosol products, and certain nonindustrial coatings, applying many existing stewardship requirements while noting some differences in collection convenience and reporting for the newly covered items. He noted the current uniform assessment for a one‑gallon container is $1.45.
Representative Strom Peterson, sponsor, described the program as a model and urged the committee to expand it to keep aerosols and other coatings out of landfills. Industry witnesses, including Mike Burgess and Jeremy Jones of the American Coatings Association, said the program has collected large volumes of paint in Washington and that aerosol cans are typically punctured, emptied and recycled for steel.
Local governments and hazardous‑waste programs broadly supported the expansion but pressed for more explicit convenience standards, inclusion of packaging, and appropriate compensation if local hazardous‑waste facilities and events are the only collection points. Peter Lyon of the Department of Ecology said Ecology supports stewardship in principle but recommended establishing standards that ensure equitable collection opportunities, applying full reporting requirements to the new products and delaying implementation dates by two years to allow for rulemaking and fiscal planning.
The Western Wood Preservers Institute asked lawmakers to remove wood preservatives from the bill, arguing those products are regulated differently and have distinct handling requirements. County solid‑waste and hazardous‑waste officials described cost savings from the existing program and urged changes that would fairly reimburse local collection programs for labor, facility space and other demonstrable costs.
The committee heard several one‑minute testimonials and closed the HB 23‑01 hearing without taking a committee vote.
