[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6363975,"mediaKeyId","2165582-74337af516bd4329a8749d619cce3706","parentId",2165582,"title","Committee Hears Split Views on Bill Requiring Ecology-Led Recycling Needs Assessment and New Recycled‑Content Rules","audioSeconds",2335,"startMs",616000,"endMs",2951000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165582-74337af516bd4329a8749d619cce3706&start=616&end=2951","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165582-74337af516bd4329a8749d619cce3706/thumbnail_616000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6363975/Washington/Committee-Hears-Split-Views-on-Bill-Requiring-Ecology-Led-Recycling-Needs-Assessment-and-New-RecycledContent-Rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363975-45be8a1271fef74ea45d5377b97efa1e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990382&Signature=Fqy4oG0rUdb8xkLKikiBBScAk8m39RW-wgpR8p~MiEbxfnwDXdTmalihLzb7rr23vNVvhxnGlQQbyic8-q7AdVbr1J9yolaXJp67sGuxDjoQky6YFx228LPvTZ6d0WztqSmCCfb0eNbW4jqGOWtE0~uarPZ9Ki83~tpY6Tsa~XdD3~IAztnOs2BVrMSorX7qoNk~6Cl8WmApD4~4JN0Mt2EmcVyGEFEjNGB-duKqeDiidb3zjI8GRdIA8S~fFJS0PvcKlLxAKp6tB~aiwK-NjANtOkqgAqCGBzJ5j1vyQzvkqofw8K0beJTFS0a8VXiJc8L7ywytubA4zk~LLqEK1g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Environment, Energy & Technology ","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 5058 would require the Washington Department of Ecology to develop statewide lists of recyclable materials (curbside and drop‑off), complete a statewide needs assessment, and expand post‑consumer recycled content (PCRC) requirements for several plastic products. Ecology would also register producers directly and set fees to fund the work.

The bill’s supporters from the waste-hauling and retail sectors told the committee the measure takes a practical, Washington‑specific approach and that a county‑by‑county needs assessment is the correct first step. Vicki Kristofferson, executive director, Washington Refuse and Recycling Association, said the assessment should identify “what it is we need to collect, what kind and how many of new collection services we need around the state,” and cited equipment and workforce constraints such as truck lead times and costs.

Opponents — including environmental groups and several recycling‑industry organizations — said the bill stops short of holding producers accountable through a full EPR system and could duplicate or delay work already underway. Dylan DeThomas, state policy lead for The Recycling Partnership, said the bill “does not create the change needed to drive the circular economy” and called a separate needs assessment duplicative of existing processes. The Association of Plastic Recyclers and packaging trade groups urged a program design that ensures funding, transparency and proper producer definitions.

Key provisions in the bill

- Ecology must develop two statewide recycling lists: one for curbside residential collection and a second for residential drop‑off. The bill specifies an initial list of materials.
- A statewide needs assessment must evaluate capacity, costs, gaps and needs to meet recycling goals; Ecology must consult every solid waste planning district and contract with a neutral third party for the assessment.
- Producers of covered products, packaging and paper products must register with Ecology and pay fees directly to the agency; Ecology sets fees and oversees reporting and implementation rather than a producer responsibility organization (PRO).
- The bill amends PCRC requirements and adds categories such as polypropylene tubs, single‑use polypropylene cups, PET and polystyrene single‑use cups, and PET thermoform containers. Ecology may extend PCRC compliance dates by up to five years if recycled material supply is insufficient. Producers may apply for waivers by paying a fee if compliance is technically infeasible or conflicts with federal law.
- The bill creates an advisory committee and a subcommittee (truth‑in‑labeling task force) to guide lists, the needs assessment and producer registration implementation. It also modifies a solid‑waste low‑income discount program administered by the Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Technical and implementation concerns

Peter Lyon, program manager for Ecology’s solid waste program, provided technical input and cautioned that implementation would be labor intensive. He estimated Ecology currently spends about 330 staff hours to register 200 producers under existing PCRC law, and that registering an estimated 2,000 additional producers under SB 5058 would require roughly 3,000 staff hours annually. Lyon also flagged a conflict between the bill’s directed fund account and the existing PCRC account and recommended timeline adjustments to allow adequate rulemaking, advisory‑committee input and agency staffing.

Where supporters and opponents align and diverge

Many haulers and local solid‑waste officials endorsed the needs assessment and a consistent statewide list, saying those elements would reduce consumer confusion and help plan infrastructure investments. Jay Velasquez, representing Basin Disposal and Consolidated Disposal Services, said PCRC requirements “actually do change plastic manufacturers’ behavior in a much quicker manner than the producer responsibility organization contemplated in other proposals.”

Environmental groups, national recycling NGOs and packaging industry representatives argued the bill lacks the funding and producer accountability features of a comprehensive EPR program and could constrain outcomes. The Recycling Partnership and the Coalition for High Performance Recycling said EPR combined with deposit‑refund systems or other measures would be more effective in raising collection and closed‑loop recycling rates.

Concerns about materials designations and glass

Several industry groups urged caution about statutorily designating curbside materials before a needs assessment is complete. Scott DeFeiff of the Glass Packaging Institute warned that placing glass on a drop‑off‑only list would reduce curbside glass access for many residents and could lower glass recycling rates. Packaging makers represented by AmeriPen and others requested clearer producer definitions, arguing an overly broad statutory definition could misallocate responsibilities.

Next steps and context

Committee staff closed public testimony on SB 5058 and the hearing record will be used for further drafting. Ecology and multiple stakeholders signaled willingness to work with the sponsor on clarifying timelines, fund accounting and producer definitions. No formal committee vote was recorded at this hearing.

The hearing also highlighted a broader policy debate in Washington: whether to pursue a state‑led, needs‑assessment pathway that places implementation responsibility with Ecology, or to adopt a full extended producer responsibility model that assigns program design and financial administration to a producer organization. The committee indicated it would consider stakeholder amendments and technical fixes before any further action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Environment, Energy & Technology - 1/29/2025 8:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 5058 would require the Washington Department of Ecology to develop statewide lists of recyclable materials (curbside and drop‑off), complete a statewide needs assessment, and expand post‑consumer recycled content requirements for several plastic products.","taxTitle","Environment, Energy & Technology, Senate, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20502,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6363971,"Senate Debate on Bottle Deposit Bill Centers on Litter Reduction, Costs and Retail Burden",4144,2984000,7128000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2165582-74337af516bd4329a8749d619cce3706&start=2984&end=7128","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2165582-74337af516bd4329a8749d619cce3706/thumbnail_2984000.jpg","/articles/6363971/Washington/Senate-Debate-on-Bottle-Deposit-Bill-Centers-on-Litter-Reduction-Costs-and-Retail-Burden","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363971-c347fb7a74d9fd525c64fe6187fa592c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990382&Signature=h5xG0PBfZIWDtzPxoG0PqUVj1g7TP497YXQOJHzzLld4oEdQINS-sB0NsTiE3x-tsqeftsk3U2i0c2fnOvW2bVkVqv64HPA26xXFS3Rwn9D4uagTLtIRoCrhheDKS0WCCMBLfIHs4uWH2Sq9RPUmkaHsmSF0uXmvfUXMiJGsWMsi7Mb8vgl4FYtQSDhvYAyO2M3qnx55Vxk9rNHOinWcbnMHgU8Kt9Sxmr2g~--O2zt4nPhWQiI~P2BFJzLYbPpyZOUv35YZoqZhzxcQV6usZUwFsz9SK5yUDpAnF-9RW-z5obKtT9vGjLXe~0Rid0SJXy8Is--0LM6JwfRl8j3Bpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 5502 would establish a statewide deposit‑refund program for beverage containers, charging a 10¢ refundable fee on covered containers (plastic, metal and glass, one gallon or less). A producer responsibility organization (PRO) would design and administer the program, fund redemption sites (express and full‑service), develop consumer‑education plans and meet redemption‑rate targets in statute. The bill sets an initial target of greater than 65% redemption by the end of year two and greater than 80% by the end of year five.

Sponsor and agency briefing

Senator June Robinson (30th Legislative District), the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee she supports the measure based on personal experience with deposit systems and concern about visible litter. “People are, for better or for worse, motivated by money,” Robinson said, describing a past experience in Michigan returning bottles for small store credit and arguing a deposit creates an incentive to keep bottles out of parks, roadways and waterways.

Peter Lyon, program manager for Ecology’s solid waste program, submitted technical comments and described the bill as “a highly effective recovery system for beverage containers.” He recommended changes to payment timing for agency costs, additional due dates to allow a two‑year rulemaking process, and explicit inclusion of tribal nations as eligible program participants.

Arguments for the bill

Proponents — including the Coalition for High Performance Recycling (CHIPR), The Recycling Partnership, glass and aluminum recyclers, environmental groups and many beverage manufacturers — argued deposit‑refund systems consistently produce higher recovery rates and cleaner material streams than curbside collection alone. Megan Lane of CHIPR told the committee that nine of the 10 U.S. states with the highest recycling rates have deposit systems and that internationally such programs can achieve 90% or higher recovery. Supporters also argued DRS (deposit return systems) create feedstock for closed‑loop recycling and can complement EPR policies.

Megan Lane said modeling shows SB 5502 could help Washington reach a roughly 75% beverage‑container recycling rate by 2028 and 90% by 2030 when paired with complementary EPR policies. Industry representatives from aluminum recycler Novelis and large PET recycler Indorama described increased domestic processing capacity and demand for higher‑quality feedstock.

Arguments against the bill

Opponents — including the Washington Refuse and Recycling Association, Basin Disposal and many grocers, food retailers and some waste companies — said the bill would create a parallel, duplicative system that shifts costs and operational burdens to consumers and retail businesses. Vicki Kristofferson of the Washington Refuse and Recycling Association called the proposal “a 1980 solution in search of solving our 2025 problem,” criticized Oregon’s implementation experience and said the approach can be regressive for people who rely on public transit.

Retail and grocery representatives said hosting redemption sites or servicing drop‑off locations imposes significant labor, liability and space burdens. The Washington Food Industry Association provided an example (from Oregon) of a drop center costing a store $76,000 per year to operate; the association recommended clarifying which costs a PRO must cover.

Implementation questions and local concerns

Witnesses debated whether the bill would worsen neighborhood disorder at busy drop sites. Several senators referenced Oregon’s experience; proponents acknowledged problems at some Oregon sites but said the bill incorporates improvements and includes options for nonprofits to redeem containers in large volumes and for MRFs that meet reporting requirements to receive at least 50% of the refund value for containers they bring to end markets.

Seattle Public Utilities, Pierce County and other local governments voiced conditional support, noting that a properly designed DRS paired with EPR could reduce litter, improve closed‑loop recycling and create economic benefits. Pierce County testified that beverage containers currently make up a material share of litter and that return incentives could reduce county expenditures for roadside and park cleanup.

Oversight, equity and co‑implementation with EPR

Multiple witnesses and Ecology staff said a DRS can coexist with an EPR program. The bill authorizes a PRO and an advisory council to oversee program planning; Ecology recommended reconciling timing for rulemaking and establishing funding flows so the agency is reimbursed for implementation costs. The Office of Equity asked that a council seat intended to represent vulnerable populations be specified as a member organization rather than the Office of Equity itself, to preserve community representation.

Where the record closed

Testimony for SB 5502 ran through a mix of industry, government and nonprofit witnesses. No committee vote was recorded at the conclusion of the public hearing. Committee members and stakeholders signaled continuing discussions on retail participation, convenience standards for redemptions, agency cost recovery timing, and measures to avoid creating duplicate or regressive systems. The public hearing closed with no formal action taken at this session.","Senate Bill 5502 would create a 10¢ refundable deposit on beverage containers ≤1 gallon and require a producer responsibility organization to fund and operate a network of redemption sites; supporters argued it raises recovery rates and reduces litter, while opponents warned of added costs to consumers, retailer burdens and potential neighborhood","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee Hears Split Views on Bill Requiring Ecology-Led Recycling Needs Assessment and New Recycled‑Content Rules

Senate Debate on Bottle Deposit Bill Centers on Litter Reduction, Costs and Retail Burden