♪♪
-It's just an ongoing problem.
-A majority of items that could be recycled in our state
are heading to the landfill,
and lawmakers say it's time for a change.
-If Amazon is putting "Amazon" on their packaging,
then they become responsible for that.
-The WRAP Act would hold businesses financially
responsible for the packaging and waste they produce.
But how would that impact the price of goods
or your garbage bill?
-In terms of cost, nothing is free.
-The proposal would also push companies
to use more recycled material and could put in place
a ten cent bottle deposit program similar to Oregon's.
-This bill is not ready for prime time.
-How can Olympia get environmental advocates
and businesses on board
to help meet our state's recycling goals?
-It's just how do you get there, and is it feasible?
-We hear from both sides.
-People want recycling to be effective.
-We're talking about rethinking recycling
as we unwrap the WRAP Act next on "City Inside Out."
♪♪
-Welcome to this edition of "City Inside Out."
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
Washington prides itself on the name the Evergreen State,
but our efforts at recycling have some advocates seeing red.
Only 17% of the plastic waste in Washington is properly recycled,
and more than half of our paper
and packaging ends up in the landfill.
Lawmakers in Olympia want to change that situation
with what's called the WRAP Act.
It would hold producers more responsible for the packaging
and waste they create
and also enact a bottle deposit fee to incentivize recycling.
Some industry leaders say this proposal
would shackle local businesses with regulations
and increase costs for their customers.
But supporters say those recycled criticisms
aren't providing any answers to a trash problem
our state can't simply throw away.
In a state full of undeniable beauty,
there's an undeniably dirty problem.
-I really hope that there comes a day
where we don't have to be out here picking up litter.
-That's Blair Englebrecht,
policy manager of the Puget Soundkeeper,
an environmental advocacy group that collected
more than 10,000 pounds of trash at Lake Union
and other waterways last year.
-With my paddle... -The 200+ volunteer events
Soundkeeper hosts annually are a tribute
to our state's dedication to the environment,
but also an indicator of a major flaw in our recycling system,
where only 17% of our plastic waste is properly recycled.
-It's just an ongoing problem.
-Research shows nearly half of all consumer product packaging
heads to the landfill,
and 11 counties in Washington state
don't offer any recycling service at all.
-I feel good about picking up trash,
but I feel bad knowing that we haven't implemented a system
that will prevent that from happening in the future.
-This bill is long.
-A new system, says State Senator Christine Rolfes,
is long overdue.
-Our solid waste laws in this state
were written mostly before plastic
was even a thing in our homes.
-Senator Rolfes, the Democrat from Bainbridge Island,
and Representative Liz Berry, the Democrat from Seattle,
are co-sponsors of the WRAP, or Washington Recycling
and Packaging Act, Senate Bill 5154 and House Bill 1131.
-Washington must implement this kind of program.
-The measure would regulate how producers package their products
and hold those producers financially responsible
for any environmental impacts
when the products are thrown away.
-A big component of the bill is to essentially authorize
and mandate that the producers of the pollution of the litter
are creating the system for cleaning up their garbage.
-The bill would also incentivize consumers to recycle
by placing a ten cent fee on beverage bottles,
much like the system in Oregon and nine other states.
-When you buy your bottles,
you're putting down a ten cent deposit.
When you return them, you get that deposit back.
-But if you thought debate on the WRAP
was wrapped up, think again.
-This bill is not ready for prime time.
-Some lawmakers are wary of the far-reaching impact
of the 131-page bill,
and some industry leaders say the bottle deposit mandate
would set back Washington's progress
as one of the top recycling states in the US.
-Creation of this duplicative system
will waste valuable resources in the state.
-Others say the WRAP Act would also hurt the haulers
of trash and recycling, who are paid by the pound,
and that in turn could drive up everyone's monthly bills.
-That material that you're talking about
taking out of the stream would have a huge impact
on our revenue and on our ratepayers.
-But some industry leaders say the concept of businesses
taking more of the financial burden for recycling
is already happening in countries around the world.
-It is not merely the responsibility
of the taxpayer or the county or locality to fund recycling.
-Scott Defife, president of the Glass Packaging Institute,
also points out that Oregon, California, and British Columbia
already have bottle deposit programs in place.
-Most of your neighbors are doing significantly better
in terms of moving the material to end markets.
-Defife says Washington's single-stream system,
where all our recyclables go into the same curbside bin,
puts us at a disadvantage.
-That makes it harder for that material
to get an effective price in the secondary market
because there is cleaner material at hand nearby.
-He says the WRAP Act could spur the creation
of a whole new recycling industry,
where millions of dollars worth of material
now lost to the landfill could be recovered and reused.
-Putting that material back into the supply chain
and back into the economy is going to create jobs
and help improve the efficiency of the production
of material in the Pacific Northwest.
-It's grossly underestimated what the cost will be.
-Building new infrastructure for the WRAP Act will take time
and investment from industry leaders.
Recycling levels have now stalled.
-But in a state with a goal
to have all packing materials recyclable,
reusable, and compostable by 2025,
lawmakers say it's time to act before opportunity floats away.
-If we don't do it, nobody else is going to do it for us.
-And joining us to talk a little bit more
about the WRAP Act we have with us Pam Clough.
She is an advocate for Environment Washington,
a statewide citizen-based environmental group.
Pam, good to have you here.
-Thank you so much for having me.
-We also have with us over Zoom Dan Felton.
He is executive director of AMERIPEN, an advocacy group
which represents the packaging industry.
Dan, good to have you, too.
-Thank you, Brian. Glad to be here.
-Let's jump right into it, and Pam, I'll start with you.
The statistics show Washington is doing a pretty good job
at recycling compared to other states,
but a lot of recyclables are still going to the landfill.
Help us frame up the current recycling situation
in our state -- why a bill like the WRAP Act
is being considered and why it's needed?
-Yeah, you know, I come at this from the environmental issue,
and so I see there is so much plastic in our society,
you know so much -- so much plastic.
You can't go outside without seeing litter on the ground.
You can't go to the beach. You can't even go
on a backpacking trip without running into plastic.
And one of the challenges of this growing amount of plastic
that we are seeing in our society
is there are so many different kinds of packaging
coming on the shelves -- multi material packaging,
things that are hard to recycle,
and that is part of what's causing issues
and inefficiencies in our recycling system.
It is true that Washington's recycling system
is one of the better -- has one of the better outcomes
in the U.S., but I kind of see
that as having one of the higher failing grades in the class.
You know, U.S. recycling is not working as well as we could.
When we look to other countries,
there are certainly recycling systems that are
functioning a lot better than what we have in the US.
And so a bill like the WRAP Act exists
because we know we can do better,
we should do better, we should be eliminating
some of the unnecessary packaging that we're using.
-Okay. And thank you for that. And I'm going to break down
some of the details on that in just a second.
But Dan, I want to talk to you about this --
AMERIPEN has been advocating for businesses
in the packaging industry in Olympia on the WRAP Act,
and your stance on this bill has shifted from "con"
to "other" over the last few weeks.
But it's clear you still have some concerns about this.
AMERIPEN promotes itself as a group
that wants to create sustainable solutions
and prevent waste. So why that stance?
What's problematic to you about this bill?
-Yeah. Thank you, Brian, for that,
and I think there's still a few things we're hopeful to work on
as we're deeply embedded in this issue around the country.
We have four laws now in place
on producer responsibility for packaging.
We see a path forward in Washington
to improve upon what we've seen done in the other states,
but also address some of the unique issues
that Washington wants to look towards as they innovate
and increase more recycling in the state.
One of the things we talked about or Pam even alluded to
is that reduction in packaging, and brand owners
and packaging manufacturers
are already doing reduction in packaging.
So we're looking for a bill, the WRAP Act, which will address --
we can call it source reduction.
That's what some people are familiar.
How do you define source reduction
to give the proper credit
to those who are already doing the right thing
and then motivate others to do that right thing as well?
That's one example of something we're continuing
to negotiate on.
-Okay. Thank you for that. And I'm going to dive into
some of these pieces right now, Dan.
This is a serious piece of legislation,
as we all know, and it's seriously large --
somewhere around 130 pages plus here.
We're going to try to break down three pillars here --
extended producer responsibility, as it's called,
the use of recycled content, and a bottle deposit program.
Pam, let's start with extended producer responsibility, or EPR.
The basic idea is producers would be financially responsible
for any environmental impacts
when products are packaging is thrown away.
What would this look like if WRAP became law?
-Yeah, well, the basic premise of it
is that companies should have a role
in what happens to the packaging that they use for the materials.
And so it creates that full circle of responsibility.
They're kind of like the missing players
in the waste management system.
So how that would look like is that companies would form
a producer responsibility organization,
which is a nonprofit that would manage the collection
and processing of recycled materials.
So they pay into that, and that is what funds the collection
and the processing of recycling. Yeah.
-Okay. All right. Well, thank you for all those pieces.
I might jump into that PRO
with just a little bit more in a second here,
but Dan, I want to make sure I ask you on this,
because in Olympia this session,
I know I've heard a lot of questions from industry leaders
as to, okay, who's responsible for what.
Let's say someone orders a product through Amazon,
it shipped to them.
Is Amazon responsible for the packaging materials?
Is the product maker responsible for the product itself?
How would that work? What are your thoughts on this?
-Yeah, that's a great question, Brian,
and it really comes down to, in short, one essential thing --
how is the producer defined? Who is that responsible party?
Is it the producer? Is it the brand owner?
Normally, it is the brand owner of that product.
But in some instances, as you look at e-commerce,
and is it Amazon who owns the the packaging
or is it some company that has their product inside?
We feel that the definition has moved in the right direction
to sort of solve for that problem
so it's very clear in the hierarchy
who will be the responsible party
if the program moves forward.
-Got it. I do want to ask you about that PRO, though,
this producer responsibility organization here --
this nonprofit that Pam alluded to here.
Dan, with regard to that, I know there are some pushback
from some other industry folks who are like,
"Hey, we do pulp and paper. We're doing great with this.
We have a 68% return on our recycling here.
Do we need to be part of this PRO?"
Can you let me know about that, about joining this nonprofit?
Because I think there's some pushback on that issue, too.
-Yeah, it's a great question, Brian.
I think we take the view at AMERIPEN
that all materials should be included in the program,
but recognize the attributes of that specific material.
If it's meeting recycled -- certain recycling rates,
it can pay lower fees.
You have to recognize that these materials
are still part of the system.
Somebody is collecting and paying for that,
and as we shift the funding of some of that responsibility
over to producers,
you still have to recognize that everybody's part of the system.
Even though some may have higher rates,
they don't need to pay as high a fees
where harder to recycle materials,
perhaps, pay a higher fee into the system,
maybe that encourages them
to look at different packaging formats
or to pull back on the use of certain types of materials.
-Okay. Thank you. And Pam, you had a piece
on this? -Yeah, I -- Dan,
I just wanted to say I totally agree with you
that we think it's really important that all producers
and all materials are included in this.
You know, think about -- you're at home thinking about
what should -- where should this, you know --
-This bottle goes in this. -This packaging. Yeah.
-Right. -You know, if it's a piece
of paper, it's a specific kind of plastic,
they're going to put it in the recycle bin.
And because of that, it needs to be addressed holistically.
And our hope is to have better environmental outcomes
from the packaging
that companies are choosing to use.
And so that is where that fee structure
that Dan was talking about really comes into play
and can help provide those incentives for companies
to make more sustainable packaging choices,
to actually use reusable materials, compostable materials
or just materials that are actually recyclable,
because there's a lot on the market that's not.
-I do want to make sure I go down this path with you, though,
Pam, when it comes to this PRO and how it would work.
We talk about these fees going in
and they would pay for this whole recycling system here.
I think about our state, which has 11 counties
that don't have any recycling available to them at all.
So how would this work?
Would it mean setting up new collection systems,
new drop-off sites?
What would the setting be if this PRO system,
this PRO system, what would that look like?
-Yeah. The way the WRAP Act is set up right now
is that the producer responsibility organization
would again be responsible for the collection
and processing of recycled materials.
So it would -- curbside recycling services
would be expanded to any Washingtonian
that currently receives curbside garbage service.
So there is a huge access component
in expanding access of recycling to Washingtonians,
you know, and of course there's certainly drop off centers.
And yeah, so that would all fall under the jurisdiction
of the producer responsibility organization.
-Thank you. And I kind of want to keep going down
this path with you, Dan, and I know we haven't covered
all the parts of the WRAP Act yet.
When we start talking about these producer responsibility
organizations, I start thinking about cost,
which I think is a very important piece of this.
What are you hearing from the businesses you represent
about how much it would cost to implement the WRAP Act?
-Yeah. Specifically, it's a little hard
to know for certain until we know
where the -- how the fees are going to be structured,
and that's part of the producer responsibilities organization.
There are companies that are very familiar
with already doing this -- for instance, north in Canada --
so they can make some estimations
of what it's going to cost. I will say, though,
that, too -- and this goes back to what Pam was talking about --
the costs are more reasonable or acceptable to the producers
who are funding the program if it helps them as well.
And I know we can talk in a moment about recycled content,
but even those harder to recycle materials,
it's a cost I believe producers are willing to incur
if they can have a better path forward for ideally
all packaging materials in the future.
If that means a little bit more infrastructure
into a certain type of recovery method
to bring more of that back into the system,
that's a reasonable expense that most producers
are willing to say, "Okay, I get that.
It helps me, it helps the environment,
it helps Washington State."
-Okay, Pam, let's talk a little bit more
about this whole idea of cost with the WRAP Act,
because I'm thinking about --
and I've heard this from a few different people.
"Wait a minute, this sounds like it's going to be
an additional cost on businesses.
That's going to trickle down to me,
the consumer," or some of the different
recycling companies out there saying, "Wait a minute,
this is going to really interrupt what we've been doing.
We're going to need all this new infrastructure
that's going to cost a lot, too.
That's going to hurt ratepayers."
Help me out with this cost thought,
because I think that's the big question behind this.
And I know that Dan brought up
the idea that we don't know exactly yet,
but it does feel like a big number to me.
-Yeah, well, that's something that has come up a lot
in my conversations with Washingtonians.
You know, people don't want to be
paying more for materials. And so when the state of Oregon
passed their producer responsibility law,
this is actually something they studied,
and they looked at the cost of a basket of goods
in places like British Columbia
that already had a producer responsibility program in place,
and then the same items that they would go
to the grocery store and purchase,
and they found no pattern in increased costs
or anything in, you know, in comparing those --
that same cost to the same basket of goods.
So they pointed to other economic factors,
like labor and energy costs.
And so as Dan said, this is, I think,
an expense that companies are willing to take on,
especially given that there could be some benefit
to companies in reclaiming these really valuable materials
that they're using for their packaging.
-Right. -And as a consumer,
this is something that I just want --
the most effective recycling system that we can.
As an environmentalist, I think we all want
less plastic littering our streets and our parks.
It's not something we want to see.
Having a better recycling system with better outcomes
is the thing that's best for consumers.
The other thing I will add to is that currently Washingtonians
are paying for recycling services --
recycling services, the cost of that have gone up,
and that is part of why some cities have decreased
the amount of services that they're providing to consumers.
In some places in Washington, recycling costs
have increased up to 30% in the last seven years.
So this would actually take the cost of recycling,
which are rising, away from Washingtonians,
away from cash-strapped cities, and onto companies
that are actually making these decisions in the first place.
-Thank you for breaking down that piece.
Dan, I want to go back to you and talk
about this post-consumer recycled content
or the PCRC requirements that are noted in the WRAP Act here.
So the goal is that all plastic packaging sold in our state
should be 100% recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2025,
and that plastic packaging incorporates
at least 20% recycled content by that point.
I want to talk about this, just your response to that goal.
Does it give producers enough time to comply?
Some thoughts about the PCRC.
-Yeah, we believe that --
So just for background information,
Washington State already has a recycled content law in place.
That was the start for the EPR --
I think Senate Bill 582 from two sessions ago.
So this is an expansion of that.
But absolutely, packaging manufacturers and brand owners
are also making commitments to having PCR content
within their packaging. So reasonable rates and dates
is what we like to call it, that are achievable,
you know, that give that recognition
to what is happening today
and what might happen five, ten, 15 years down the line --
absolutely. That's a goal
that everybody wants --to be using less virgin material.
It's just how do you get there, and is it feasible?
And we're comfortable that the conversation in Washington State
around the WRAP Act is continuing to trend
in the right direction,
recognizing that producers are trying to do the right thing.
But you have to have a system set up
to be able to help them do the right thing,
and that's what the WRAP Act could do.
-And just some thoughts about this, Pam,
these goals with the PCRC --
can you speak to this with that recycled content
and producers using it? -Yeah.
I will note that the WRAP Act doesn't
actually in statute say companies need to transition
to reusable compostable or fully recyclable materials.
That was an element that was taken out.
However, the incentives are still in place,
and the intent of the bill
is still to facilitate that transition.
-Right. -So the recycled content
standards are certainly part of that.
-Okay. -And yeah. So.
-All right. Thank you for making that point there.
And Dan, I'll have you jump in on this point, too.
Pam, but I wanted to talk about this whole idea
of a circular economy and what that means.
This whole idea that the supporters of WRAP, at least,
are saying it would divert $104 million
in recyclable material that's going into landfills
back into our economy. The hope is -- and we've
seen this in other places around the world --
we could create a whole new industry for recycled materials
and that could grow out of the WRAP Act.
Some thoughts about this, the circular economy?
I've heard from some producers out there
saying, "There's not a great market for plastic.
It's cheaper for us to buy virgin plastic right now."
Some thoughts about this whole idea of a circular economy,
if you could?
-Yeah, AMERIPEN -- Listen, Brian,
we believe that's entirely possible
with the right programs put in place.
Packaging does not belong in landfills.
It doesn't belong in the roadways.
It doesn't belong in our waterways.
And if we have an ability
to bring that packaging back into the system
to make that more circular system, absolutely.
And we do believe a good, well- structured program can do that.
And that's what we hope the WRAP Act will be able to do
without necessarily restricting packaging.
We're not looking for a program --
and I don't believe the WRAP Act does this --
where it may ban or restrict the use of materials,
but it's going to encourage driving
that more circular economy
so that we don't see those materials going to landfill.
Absolutely.
-Yeah. Pam, some thoughts about this,
because I think this is really the goal
of what the WRAP Act's all about.
-It is. Yeah. I think that this
is certainly part of it,
and the eco-modulated fee structure --
that graduated tiered structure
that could help incentivize companies to use materials
that are more easily recyclable.
And one other element about the the benefits
of using recycled content is there are climate benefits.
It is a lot less energy intensive
to use recycled materials
than it is to use virgin materials.
And so this is part of that goal
of how do we actually use less virgin materials,
whether you're talking about plastic, wood,
metals -- all across the board,
it is better for the climate to use recycled materials.
Not to mention when you're talking about plastic,
that also means less extraction of fossil fuels
out of the earth, so. -Yeah. All right.
Thank you for all those different pieces there.
I wanted to talk about the third pillar of the WRAP Act
with you here, Pam -- tacking this ten cent deposit fee
on glass, plastic, metal bottles and cans,
which consumers could get back when they return them there.
Oregon, nine other states have a similar system.
So why is a bottle bill part of the WRAP Act?
Is this going to be a hassle for consumers?
Let's break this down.
-Yeah, Bottle bills have shown
that they produce very high recycling rates.
It leads to very clean streams of materials,
and having as clean of a product
going in on the front end of a recycling system,
that leads to a better product on the back end.
So that's the crux of why a bottle bill works so well.
And when you look to our neighbors in the north,
in British Columbia,
they have this model of a producer responsibility system
paired with a bottle deposit system,
and they have rates around 90%,
compared to Washington's less than 50%.
So it provides consumers more options in terms of
how are they getting these materials back in
to the system so that we can actually
make sure that they're being recycled.
When we put something in the bin,
we want to have confidence that it is getting recycled.
-An added hassle, though, for consumers -- you need to get
on the bus and bring it different places.
-Well, so, a lot of places have deposits at grocery stores.
-Okay. -So you go to the grocery store
anyways.
You get -- That's where you get your soda bottles.
That's where you get your beer bottles.
-Sure. -You're going back there.
So I think that there is some element of convenience,
and that's something that's very important to us,
is that it is convenient for Washingtonians.
-You want the compliance, right. -Yeah.
Because that will lead to better outcomes.
-Yeah. Dan, did you have a thought on this one?
-Yeah, just a real briefly, Brian.
It's an interesting dynamic taking place in Washington State
because in the three of the four states
that have enacted package and producer laws,
three of those four have bottle bills already in place.
Colorado is the exception. They don't have a bottle bill.
Now, we have this legislation coming forward
in Washington state where it could put both together
in a state where the state hasn't had either,
and there's an interesting dialog going on here.
Some feel -- and AMERIPEN doesn't take a specific position
on bottle bills.
There are other trade associations who would do that.
But some are making the argument that if you pull
that more clean material out of the curbside recycling,
some are concerned that it may jeopardize
the efficacy of the municipal curbside programs,
which really rely very heavily on that content.
Again, that's not a position AMERIPEN is stating
one way or another, but it's an interesting dynamic
we have not seen play out
in any of the other states with laws in place.
-Interesting. And I know that's going to be part
of what Olympia is discussing, but we are out of time here,
just about. Pam, time to wrap up,
all puns intended there.
Some final thoughts for lawmakers
working on the details of this bill right now?
-Yeah, well, I wanted to say
that Senator Rolfes and Representative Berry,
the sponsors of this legislation,
have done a lot of work with a lot of stakeholders.
So I think that's something
that they've been very diligent about.
And this is a policy that Washingtonians want.
I talked to Washingtonians all the time about how fed up
people are with plastic.
People want recycling to be effective,
and this is a policy
that will move us in that direction to hopefully
be using less plastic materials in the first place and using
more recycled packaging and sustainable packaging.
-Thank you for that. Dan, 30-second version,
if you can -- final words for Olympia here.
-Yeah, I absolutely agree with Pam.
Kudos to Senator Rolfes and Representative Berry
on the wonderful work
they've been doing to bring all stakeholders.
I mean, look, Pam and I come from very different backgrounds
sitting here together with you, Brian,
and we have to have all these stakeholders at the table,
and we really appreciate the dialogue
that's taking place in Washington State
and feel that there's a good path forward
and we're committed to be part of that process up to the,
you know, possible enactment of the legislation.
-All right. Well, great. Thank you both
for talking with me. And we will be right back.
♪♪
-What are people saying on social media about the WRAP Act?
One person writes...
Another person says...
We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an e-mail at contact@SeattleChannel.org
or find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
-Coming up next time, Olympia takes aim yet again
at our state's gun control laws.
A new proposal would ban so-called assault weapons,
mandate gun safety training, and make gun manufacturers
potentially liable for negligent sales.
Polls show this measure has strong support,
but opponents say it won't do anything
to improve public safety
and could hinder the public's right to self defense.
It's a loaded debate on a possible change
to our state's gun policies on the next "City Inside Out."
I hope you join us.
♪♪