MMA reaffirms support for producer responsibility bill for paint

On May 5, the MMA submitted a letter to the House Committee on Ways and Means supporting a bill that would establish manufacturer responsibility for the recycling of waste paint.

The proposed stewardship program would be operated by the paint industry and funded by a consumer fee at point of sale. The bill (H. 938) would enable statewide participation by requiring that at least 90% of Massachusetts residents would have a collection site within 15 miles of their residence, and one site would be made available for every 50,000 residents in urban areas.

“Extended producer responsibility” legislation for paint has been adopted in 10 states across the nation. Programs in those states have resulted in the reuse or recycling of more than 70% of latex paint collected, relieving local governments and taxpayers of more than $295 million in avoided paint transportation and processing costs. EPR programs are demonstrating that leftover paint can be safely and sustainably diverted from waste streams, with an added cost-saving benefit for municipalities.

As Massachusetts aims to meet ambitious solid waste reduction goals set in its Solid Waste Master Plan, legislators and environmentalists are turning their attention to extended producer responsibility legislation as a way to promote the recycling and reuse of certain products and materials.

With extended producer responsibility, or EPR, manufacturers and importers of products bear much of the responsibility for the environmental impacts of production as well as the impacts of the product’s use and disposal. Stewardship organizations or manufacturers operate a recycling and disposal process, often financed by a consumer fee charged at point of sale. Advocates assert that EPR can help remove materials that are not easily recycled from municipal waste streams and ensure their proper disposal.

EPR legislation for plastics and packaging was first signed into law in Maine in 2021, followed quickly by Oregon. Bills before the Massachusetts Legislature would implement EPR for packaging and for specific products, such as paint, mattresses and box springs. The MMA expressed support for many of these bills earlier this session.

Upcoming waste bans
Additional efforts to meet the goals of the 2030 Solid Waste Master Plan include the expansion of statewide waste disposal bans. The state’s first waste bans were introduced in 1990, pulling easy-to-recycle and hazardous materials out of the solid waste sent to landfills and combustion facilities. Two new bans, on mattresses and textiles, will become effective on Nov. 1.

The Department of Environmental Protection reports that approximately 600,000 mattresses and box springs are discarded in Massachusetts each year. Despite being composed of almost entirely recyclable materials, they are often not recycled. The impending mattress ban could place an added burden on many municipalities that lack the capacity to collect and store mattresses and transport them to recyclers.

Two bills before the Legislature (H. 988 and S. 569) seek to address the gap in recycling services by creating a mattress stewardship program, which would be funded by a fee paid when consumers buy a new mattress or box spring. Without such a system in place by November, many municipalities might be left scrambling to get the resources needed to comply with the ban.

Currently, there is no legislation to address the upcoming textile ban. Municipalities looking to establish a textiles recovery or recycling program are encouraged to contact RecyclingWorks Massachusetts or the MassDEP for assistance.

The MassDEP estimates that 230,000 tons of textiles are tossed each year in Massachusetts, so a significant diversion from the waste stream would reduce disposal costs for local governments. Where textiles would be diverted to is a larger question for municipalities and residents without easy access to existing donation services.

The MassDEP has published answers to frequently asked questions about the upcoming waste bans.

Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that the House Committee on Ways and Means had held a hearing on H. 938. The bill was favorably reported to the committee on April 14.