NWRA expresses concerns about Connecticut EPR bill

NWRA’s Lew Dubuque says the legislation is not needed in a state with "excellent universal collection and many transfer stations and several modern materials recovery facilities."

legislation stamp

(c) Convisum | Dreamstime.com

Lew Dubuque, vice president of chapter management for the Arlington, Virginia-based National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA), testified remotely before the Joint Environment Committee in opposition to HB 6664, legislation that would implement an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program in Connecticut.

“The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) continues to promote EPR as the solution to the state’s ‘self-sufficiency crisis,’” Dubuque says. “This is another ill-advised attempt at legislating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Connecticut has excellent universal collection, many transfer stations and several modern materials recovery facilities. An EPR regime in Connecticut is not likely to achieve the goals that are expected.”

RELATED: AF&PA sees potential EPR dilemma in Washington state | California legislation takes on textiles

Dubuque also expressed the chapter’s opposition to other provisions in the legislation. The bill would give DEEP complete control over Connecticut’s waste infrastructure and increase taxes on residents through solid waste assessments.

The EPR legislation includes three sections Dubuque says in his testimony that NWRA opposes:

  • It would give DEEP “extraordinary power and control over any new waste management infrastructure through their proposed RFPs. DEEP is not a developer; [it is] a regulator, this creates a major conflict of interest and is nothing more than a power grab implemented by DEEP through potential long-term contracts.”
  • It would require statewide organics separation, including food scraps and other materials, which Dubuque says NWRA favors, but it opposes the mandate in this case because some types of housing cannot “easily source separate food scraps. There are also ways, such as mechanical sorting equipment, to divert food scrap. This bill does not allow such a method, unfortunately.”
  • It would apply a $5-per-ton fee on waste headed to landfills and also raise the current $1.50-per-ton fee for waste headed to waste-to-energy facilities to $3 per ton. “At the end of the day, this will act as … another tax on Connecticut residents,” Dubuque says.