Lawmakers hear county, agency and industry perspectives on hazardous‑waste EPR; battery take‑back, mercury lamp disruptions flagged

State and local officials, and industry representatives, told the Environment and Energy Committee that extended producer responsibility (EPR) could relieve local budgets and improve equity for hazardous‑waste management — but they urged careful scoping, phased implementation and attention to rural access and program funding.

Peter Lyon, who manages Ecology’s solid waste management program, reviewed existing stewardship programs and schedules: E‑cycle Washington (electronics) operates with more than 200 collection sites; the Paint Care program reports about 290 year‑round sites and collected over 1,000,000 gallons in 2024; and Washington's battery stewardship program is scheduled to begin in July 2027 for portable batteries, with medium‑format collections beginning in 2029. Lyon also said the mercury‑containing lamp stewardship program lost its producer organization at the end of 2025, prompting Ecology to send more than 40 warning notices while it reviews a new stewardship plan from the Mercury Lamp Recyclers Association.

Local governments described rising costs and access gaps Pam Johnson, a King County hazardous‑waste policy advisor, described King County’s network (four fixed facilities plus events), reporting more than 80,000 visits in 2025 and over 3,000,000 pounds collected that year; she said the county spends over $6,000,000 a year on labor and disposal contracts and that costs have risen about 20% over five years. Johnson highlighted equity gaps in participation and barriers for BIPOC, lower‑income and multifamily residents.

Becky People, director of solid waste for Douglas County, told the committee that rural access is the primary challenge: her county invested about $2,000,000 to open a new facility, and initial collections show demand that was previously unserved. "When services are available and people trust them, they're going to participate," she said.

Industry cautions on program design Christopher Fenarelli, representing the Household and Commercial Products Association, cautioned that EPR works best for narrowly defined product streams and urged a needs assessment before adopting a broad HHW EPR program. He pointed to Vermont's experience as a cautionary tale in which scope expansion created orphan‑product issues and implementation challenges.

Program design considerations and next steps Ecology recommended best practices for EPR: clear definitions of covered products and producers, producer‑funded programs rather than point‑of‑sale fees, convenience standards, annual reporting and consistent enforcement authority. Panelists and members emphasized phased approaches that focus first on high‑volume or high‑cost items, protect rural access through multiple delivery models (mobile events, satellite collection, regional partnerships) and ensure stable funding to avoid service erosion.

No final policy was adopted at the session; the committee said it will continue the conversation and reviewers urged careful scoping, stakeholder engagement and data collection before any broad HHW EPR mandate.