New law, forum target product waste
Photo/David A. Rodgers
Lisa Martin, executive director of the Manufacturers Association of Maine, says members are concerned about the potential costs of product stewardship
As a lobbyist for the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, Chris Jackson has analyzed the business impact of dozens of bills. But it was a measure introduced last December, LD 1631, which won Jackson’s assessment as “the worst piece of legislation I’ve ever seen.”
The bill, sponsored by Yarmouth Rep. Melissa Walsh Innes, would have allowed Department of Environmental Protection staff to impose recycling or reclamation mandates on any product sold in Maine, an expansion of the laws that now require electronics and CFL light bulbs to be recycled by their manufacturers. In its original form, the bill would have required select manufacturers to provide five years of processing data; DEP assessments of a product’s adverse impact on climate change; and third-party audits for compliance with all local, state, national and international product stewardship laws, among other things, according to Jackson’s testimony
before the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources in January. It further granted authority to the DEP to make those mandating decisions through rulemaking, bypassing the Legislature and any opportunity for people like Jackson to raise an objection. A very different version of the bill eventually passed.
So it’s more than a little surprising that now, eight months later, the state chamber, Innes and the Natural Resources Council of Maine have jointly sponsored a forum on product stewardship, the concept of making manufacturers — not municipalities — responsible for their waste – the foundation of LD 1631. Jackson and one the forum’s primary organizers, Matt Prindiville, clean production project director at NRCM, say they hope the educational event, held Aug. 17 in Portland, begins a conversation among lawmakers, businesses, policy makers, environmentalists and others about the benefits and business opportunities surrounding product stewardship.
“It was a very interesting process, the work on 1631,” says Jackson. “I think, from our perspective, that this is a win for the business and environmental communities.”
But the issue has already raised alarm among some Maine manufacturers, says Lisa Martin, executive director of the Manufacturers Association of Maine, who joined Jackson in battling LD 1631 in its original form. Her members support adopting sustainable manufacturing practices, but bristle at having requirements imposed on them by regulators, rather than finding their own private-sector solutions.
“I think 1631 would have set a dangerous precedent,” she says. “Of course manufacturers look for opportunities to recycle or reuse materials. But they’re doing it because it’s in the best interest of the business, not because the state says to do so.”
By way of example, she cites several advanced textile manufacturers in Maine that are sharing operations and practices to seek out collaborations that reduce waste. Although only six months old, the effort has companies such as Sanford-based U.S. Felt Co. talking to Portland-based Planet Dog about converting waste felt into dog toys. Martin says about a dozen companies, including New Balance, Atayne, Seabags and Belted Cow, have formed a loose coalition through MAM and are seeking money from Maine Technology Institute for a feasibility study to explore other strategic collaborations that could reduce overhead, operational costs and waste.
Embracing sustainability
Maine has five existing product stewardship laws, claiming a first-in-the-nation title for requiring electronic manufacturers to pay for the recycling of computer monitors, TVs and other electronics in 2004. But on a global scale, Maine and the rest of the United States have been slow to embrace product stewardship, eclipsed by Canada, the European Union and other countries.
“The issue has been gearing up at the state Legislature for the past decade, but it’s really well developed in Canada, where they essentially try to get everything out of the waste stream and back to the manufacturer to run collections and recycling,” says Prindiville. “Europe also, where essentially anything with a battery or a plug (is part of a product stewardship program.)”
Such programs often ban certain products from landfills and incinerators, and/or ban the sale of those products unless the manufacturer has a plan for their reuse or disposal. While electronics fall under product stewardship laws here, in other countries, they include carpeting, paint, lamps and other materials.
The reworked version of LD 1631 passed due to tough negotiations between proponents and opponents of the bill, says Jackson. He credits Innes for going out of her way to encourage dialogue and seeking a compromise for the success of the final bill. Trimmed from its original 11 pages to three, the bill establishes a regulatory framework for the state to consider product stewardship mandates. Under the revised bill, passed in March, the DEP is directed to issue an annual report to the Legislature on the status of product stewardship in Maine, and identify possible product candidates for new stewardship laws, followed by a 30-day comment period for input from the public. It also gives the Natural Resources Committee authority to craft legislation based on that DEP report.
“At least this way, we have the chance to comment proactively before (a product stewardship bill) is introduced to the Legislature,” says Jackson.
He notes that nearly everyone agrees product stewardship is a good idea, an amplification of the sustainability philosophy that gives equal weight to people, the planet and profit. Manufacturers that reclaim products at the end of their useful lives can recover components to reuse, thereby reducing their carbon footprint and the amount of raw materials needed in their operations. Keeping waste out of landfills and incinerators makes for a healthier environment, and since manufacturers can build the reclamation costs into the product’s price tag, they can avoid an undue financial burden.
But Martin says those extra costs can hobble manufacturers, who are already battling foreign competition, high energy and transportation costs and a dwindling work force. “Manufacturing can’t afford more cost burdens,” says Martin.
Prindiville says once a country establishes a public policy that states it will not send manufactured products to landfills or incinerators, it creates economic incentives. The tag line of the Aug. 17 conference was “How business and states are turning today’s trash into tomorrow’s products.”
“This is a business opportunity for Maine,” he says of product stewardship. “It is fundamentally changing a solid waste perspective to a sustainable materials paradigm.”
Most Recent
Most Recent
Comments