1:12
So we like to welcome you all to the first.
1:18
Alright, thank you for attending the first of the department stakeholder meetings for the extended producer program for
1:24
packaging. I'm gonna start off by saying. The microphones in this room are in the ceiling.
1:30
So they're very sensitive. So anything you say will get written.
1:38
And transcribe. Everyone to see. So we asked that people in the room be quiet
1:45
unless you're actually speaking so. OK. I'll go back to my spiel. I, Brian been asking the head of
1:53
the Department Sustainability Unit and I will be handling the technical issues in the meeting along with Mary Breton.
2:00
Who's with our Commissioner's Office. I'd also like to introduce Elena Bertocci and Jessica Nadeau. They
2:07
are in the sustainability unit of the department and are the staff in charge of implementing the EPR
2:14
for packaging law. They will also be acting as the moderators for this meeting.
2:21
As this is the first meeting, I'm going to start out with saying that there may be some technical bumps, so I ask for
2:27
everyone's patience if or when those happen. We will make sure that everyone who wishes to present their
2:34
comments will get a chance to do so. And everyone's submitted comments will be made available. We'll
2:40
link that to the EPR for packaging website.
2:46
I would also like to add that this meeting is being recorded and that the recording should be available for public viewing the
2:53
beginning of next week. Additionally, through the wonders of technology, a transcript will also be made available. This meeting, and
3:00
that will be made available with the comments received through a link that will be on the program's website.
3:09
These meetings are part of the stakeholder process initiated by the department. From the comments received during these
3:16
meetings, the department will draft the rules for the EPR program that will be submitted to the Board of Environmental
3:22
Protection in December of 2023. As part of the formal rulemaking process. In addition to presenting your comments at this meeting, we ask
3:30
that you provide a copy in writing to the e-mail address on the program's website.
3:35
Comments is not limited to attendees. The department will accept all comments for consideration that
3:41
are submitted in writing. This meeting's focus topic is on producer exemptions as outlined
3:48
in the background information Document the Department prepared for this meeting, we ask that comments be kept to the specific
3:55
topic, as later stakeholder meetings will focus on other topics. Currently have approximately 25 people who are registered to
4:04
provide comments during this meeting and approximately 150 people registered viewing the meeting live. After an
4:10
individual's initial presentation of their comments, we will provide time for other attendees of the meeting to ask
4:17
other clarifying questions of the presenter. Due to the number of people registered, we are limiting
4:24
everyone's time to 10 minutes in total. I will provide a warning time at the 8 minute mark.
4:30
We ask that questions be kept to clarifying the commenters position, and that any back and forth dialogue regarding the
4:37
commenters position be saved for the stake second stakeholder meeting for this topic.
4:43
As this is both an in person and virtual meeting, we ask that those with questions raise their hand and hold your questions
4:50
until a moderator recognizes you and allow time for us to make you a presenter so everyone will hear your question. To try to keep the
4:58
meeting organized, we will be allowing those commenters in person to speak first, followed by those attending
5:05
virtually. Although people virtually can ask questions. Of the people here at that time, you do not have to be attending
5:13
in person to ask clarifying questions. Just use the raise your hand feature. 
5:21
If you did not previously inform the department that you would be presenting comments but wish to do so, please let me know now so we can
5:28
add you to the list and change time limits if needed.
5:33
Does anybody here want to present either here or virtually that didn't let us know?
5:45
I'm going with no. So. I will now hand the meeting over to Elena and Jessica.
6:00
Alright, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you to those of you tuning in and those of you who put together some comments
6:08
and are gonna provide those to everyone today. So as Brian said, we're gonna start with those in house when it comes to
6:16
sharing comments and. First up is. Sarah Nichols.
6:24
From the Natural Resources Council of Maine. Unless someone else would like to go first, this was just an
6:31
auto populated list. 1st to sign up so you are the first to speak.
6:38
Congratulations. Alright, well, so I'm going to hand it over to Sarah now and she'll have 10 minutes if need be and
6:46
we'll give an 8 minute mark. Heads up from Brian and after you're done sharing comments,
6:53
we're just gonna ask for you to hang around just a little bit. And if anybody has a clarifying question, we'll let them ask
7:00
that to you. OK.
7:07
What an honor to be able to go first. Thank you so much for hosting this today. I will not be taking up the entire 10 minutes. I was
7:14
planning on three. My written comments are much longer on which you'll get but.
7:20
I'll begin by saying my name is Sara Nichols. I am the Sustainable Maine Program Director at the Natural Resources Council of
7:25
Maine and NRCM is committed to ensuring the success of Maines extended producer responsibility for packaging program. And thank
7:31
you for the opportunity to participate in the rule making process. I have about 5 pages of written remarks and I've emailed them.
7:38
Actually I should correct that my computer died this morning and I will e-mail those to you once I get that going again.
7:46
Umm, but the highlights are that in general we believe that any packaging that is currently being collected by
7:52
municipalities should remain in the EPR system unless that material is best managed for a different program.
7:59
If any special treatment is to be granted regarding federal regulations that limit the recyclability or use of recycled
8:06
materials for a particular type of package, then that should be addressed through reductions in fees and not exemptions. And
8:12
here's why. All of the federally regulated packaging materials that we are considering today are still going to be in the municipal
8:19
waste stream in Maine, except that means municipal taxpayers will have to pay for it. This is inequitable and contrary to the fundamental rationale
8:27
behind producer responsibility. Exemptions add administrative complications and make
8:33
performance measurement challenging for the stewardship organization because of the lack of reporting. For instance,
8:38
producers should only be accountable for the obligated materials. Significant auditing is required to account for
8:44
exempted materials collected by municipalities. And then it would be difficult to measure collection and
8:50
recovery rates if a large amount of material that is being collected by municipalities is not captured as
8:55
covered packaging being sold into the state by the stewardship organization. Exemptions benefit producers of exempted materials, which in
9:03
this case are primarily producers of drugs and toxic chemicals. This creates an unfair, unlevel marketplace.
9:09
Everyone should have skin in the game and have incentives to reduce waste and make more sustainable packaging choices.
9:16
We already have a lengthy list of exemptions in the program, which were added to the law for various reasons ranging from
9:22
operational to political, but none that consider recyclability or ability to reduce packaging, which is the basis for
9:28
considering federally regulated packaging exemptions by major substantive rule. This highlights the lack of consistent rationale for
9:35
granting exemptions in the program. As such, we urge the department to consider defining criteria to
9:41
be used in determining whether an exemption is appropriate under an EPR law as part of the routine technical rulemaking
9:47
process. And in contrast to considering more exemptions, we urge the department to request that the stewardship organization seek
9:54
out the exempted producers that we have already exempted and asked them to voluntarily report estimates of the amount of
10:00
packaging material or to be voluntary stewards, so that we gain a more accurate and fair packaging stewardship program.
10:07
Further, we urge the department to amend the schedule for implementation of this program to remove reference to major
10:13
substantive rulemaking for exemptions we do not support any exemptions by major substantive rule. But if that happens, then
10:20
the implementation of the EPR for packaging program can happen concurrently with enter major substantive rulemaking activity.
10:28
The major substantive rulemaking will only determine what packaging producers are exempt from requirements to pay fees to
10:33
the stewardship organization. The request for proposal for the stewardship organization, and the selection of the Stewardship Organization
10:39
can be underway. At the same time as the submittal of major substantive rules to the legislature. Since
10:45
the exemptions in question do not impact that process. There will be producers who enter and leave the program over
10:51
the lifetime of the program for various reasons, and if major substantive rule making adoption changes the fee amounts at any
10:57
point in time, the stewardship organization could address the situation through debits and credits as needed.
11:03
So I think I'll stop there and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important aspect of Mainz PR for
11:09
packaging program and we look forward to working with the department and providing comments on the other four topic
11:14
areas. Thank you.
11:20
Any questions? Yeah. So we're gonna open it up. Any questions in house? Any questions in the virtual world? Just raise a hand
11:28
if so.
11:34
OK, take that as a no. We'll move on. Great. Thank you. Thanks.
11:43
We have a hand.
11:53
Yeah.
12:07
My town shut down its recycling program. Does that mean it won't be able to participate in EPR?
12:20
Yes, a town that's not recycling will not be eligible.
12:28
One of the requirements for participation is that towns.
12:35
Provide for the collection and recycling of a list of readily recyclable items. 
12:49
Yeah, I mean that, that's. Would you like to? Ohh I'd know what the protocol is there.
12:55
Senator Nicole Grohoski here. The part of the goal of this program is that they would be
13:02
able to use support from the producer funded funds to start up a new program and as long as they were recycling all the
13:09
readily recyclable items then they would be eligible for reimbursement.
13:16
That sounds like a chicken in the egg. Uh, when you have a town that. Recycled very well for many years and then newly elected
13:25
started to shut it down. Uh. I don't know that you know what's gonna prompt them to.
13:34
Participate. But and you know, sounds like they'd have to apply for funding
13:40
to restart the recycling. 
13:46
Maybe we could. Be in touch with your town it if you just like to let us know what town we could, we could be in touch with them and.
13:52
Yeah, it's the town of Hancock, Hancock County. OK. Yeah. We'll be in touch and and that's also a topic that
14:00
we're gonna touch on in January. So you may want to come to that meeting as well.
14:19
But yeah, we can certainly be in touch with them.
14:37
OK. We'll move to, we'll move on to the second speaker, which is Julianne Smith from Maine Farm Bureau Building Association. Are
14:46
you in house?
14:51
Maybe you're in. The webinar, if so, just raise your hand and we'll.
15:01
Give you the floor.
15:17
OK, so we'll go. We'll move on to the the third speaker
15:30
on the list. From Purdue University, we have student Sara Languet.
15:42
Not seems like you're not in the house either. Are you attending virtually Sara Languet?
15:49
From Purdue University.
15:59
We're going to move on to the next one, OK.
16:07
We have Andrew Hackman with AMERIPEN. OK, super.
16:12
Good afternoon, Andy Hackman. I'm with the American
16:18
Institute for Packaging and the Environment association that represents the entire packaging supply chain. We don't have formal prepared comments because
16:25
I think we thought this is going to be the department presenting the potential exemptions and the
16:31
background document. So I thought there would be a dialogue, happy to engage in a dialogue relative to those
16:37
exemptions. We did have one question related to that perishable food. The statute includes language that says
16:43
including, but not limited to, and then lists off some categories. That's a section of the statute that we think needs
16:50
additional clarity so that folks can understand food and and and could range from cereal to perishable food that's at a
16:58
grocery store. So there's some clarity that we think needs to be had there and the department could offer through regulation
17:06
in terms of the other categories of products or packages that might be considered for exemption. Having reviewed the
17:13
list, one of our contentions is that if it's going to contaminate the stream for recycled.
17:19
Content that should be considered whether or not it should be in the program or not. What whether not they pay fees
17:26
might be left up to the producer responsibility organization, but materials that may contaminate the stream may not necessarily.
17:35
Should not be recycled and and put into a stream that might come in contact with food. So I think
17:41
that's a consideration that's gonna have to be balanced because those materials say pesticides could not go into 
17:47
recycled content stream for something that comes in contact with food. So that's something that the statute obviously
17:53
doesn't address and we'll need to be balanced with the overall structure of the program. We also are aware of there are some
17:59
voluntary stewardship programs such as the agricultural Container recycling program that aren't recognized under main
18:05
statute. That might qualify, perhaps as an alternative recycling structure, but could relate into the top of considerations today
18:13
relative to whether or not a federally regulated product such as a FIFA regulated product shouldn't be excluded from the
18:20
program. So that's something that may even be considered but could come underneath the alternative collection program.
18:27
So that's all the comments I've come up with here in the last five minutes is I've thought through what we do, but would
18:34
welcome a dialogue to kind of go through the. Support document that y'all sent out. There was a lot of work
18:39
that went into that and appreciate that and I thought there could be some useful dialogue amongst the stakeholders over here. So thank you for the opportunity.
18:47
And we're going to plan on doing that on in the 22nd. Thank you. I had a question actually. 
19:04
Thank you. Ohh sorry. Senator so well, my question was, I mean, I think you
19:11
mentioned that you were concerned that a container that was contaminated with something toxic could be getting in the
19:19
same stream recycling stream as a food container, but I think.
19:25
Maybe I have a misunderstanding, but that already does happen and that a lot of the.
19:32
Plastics that are used to create food grade packaging are not coming from those same streams, but.
19:39
Do you have specific examples or counter information to that? Yeah, the the the end applications for those
19:45
materials. If they're able to be segregated in the streams like about Bleach won't go into.
19:52
So anyway, so it's either going to be segregated
20:00
and used for a non packaging product, so Trex decking or something along those lines and that's maybe a beneficial use.
20:08
But. Not all packaging is packaging. Not all packaging, food,
20:14
packaging, correct. And I'm not saying they shouldn't pay fees, but there needs to be consideration for what fees they
20:20
pay if they're gonna be in the program and also related to recycled content. So you can't take a pesticide plastic, even
20:27
if it's in the stream and put it into a food contact plastic. So I think those allocations have to be made whether or not
20:34
they're exempted or not is a different question, but. It's something that will need to be considered and will need to
20:41
be balanced. Relative to to the federal structure, that's potentially for exemptions.
21:07
Hello, this is Chris from RPM eco based in Montreal, Canada. I just like to to know your name, Sir. To get in touch with
21:14
you. We find it very interesting what you're saying. Hi Andrew hackman.
21:20
You can find me on serlinhaley.com. 
21:37
Yes, I believe Chris does recycling of some of those,
21:42
yeah, hazardous products. Another question from Senator Grohoski. I know you prepared
21:50
remarks but I just I'm trying to be clear. Are you do you support exempted materials that are federally regulated? Are you
21:57
supporting or not supporting them? I think it needs to be considered in terms of the scope of the program since the
22:04
department is creating rules that are gonna govern the whole program and the fact that these materials cannot end up in, in
22:11
certain applications for recycled content, for the goals etcetera. That has to be balanced if they're going to provide
22:18
exemptions. We are neither supporting nor posing exemptions for things like pesticides, bleach and over the counter
22:24
drugs. I think they need to look at whether or not the material underlying the underlying material that's being used in
22:31
the packaging might be considered recyclable. But when it comes to particularly hot things that are toxic, those
22:37
shouldn't be intermingled with other plastics, other papers, etcetera. So that's gonna need to be considered.
22:44
Either here or within the goals that are set to rule.
22:50
So keep them in the program, but maybe manage them differently in the program through the municipal waste
22:57
streams. What you're saying potentially where they may require their own program and similar to the the agricultural
23:04
recycling program, it's an alternative collection program, which I think is that on the agenda for today at all or not
23:10
because that's not an exemption, but it's a a factor that needs to be considered so.
23:17
Whether or not that's, that's the direction of these things will go, but there's also requirements, potentially
23:22
municipalities to to segregate those streams. If we're gonna include them in fees and in the program, and they're never gonna
23:29
be actually be recycled back into packaging. Is that an outcome that we want? Do we need to require municipalities to
23:35
segregate those materials out of? The stream that might go back into packaging.
23:49
Hey any other questions? There are not in house and it looks like there are none
23:56
online. So thank you, Andrew. We appreciate your comments.
24:01
And we're gonna have Nicole Grohoski.
24:09
provide comments next. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. And I did e-mail these as well. So there will be
24:17
available that way. I am Nicole grohowski. I'm state Senator for Senate District 7, representing most of Hancock County, and I
24:24
live in Ellsworth. I was also the lead sponsor of the legislation that has created a law that we are now all
24:31
discussing. And so I just want to start by thanking the department for putting together this meeting and being so
24:37
diligent in this process. And I really appreciate generally the structure that you've laid out to look at each piece.
24:44
Really. Because I think they do all warrant their own discussions. Maine's extended producer responsibility for packaging
24:52
law, I believe will transform the way that packaging waste is managed in Maine. It's one of the reasons I'm thrilled about it
24:59
because it's not working right now. I am grateful for the work of the department implement the
25:06
program because we know that municipalities and taxpayers really need relief. They're currently shouldering the burden
25:12
of managing all of this waste on their own. So. I'm also excited that Maine has led the nation in establishing
25:20
EPR for packaging. And, as you probably know, since our bill became law, three other states have adopted a similar approach
25:28
to managing packaging waste. And I would just urge that we here in Maine continue to lead by example and not unduly weaken
25:36
our program by considering exemptions for federally regulated packaging by major substantive rule.
25:44
Minimizing these exemptions and also working toward consistency to the extent that we can with these four states is important.
25:51
I know to the other legislative sponsors of those laws. And I think that will benefit the regulated community to have
25:58
consistency where possible and so fewer exemptions, less confusion.
26:04
I can also say as the primary sponsor of this legislation with confidence that the bill was drafted with the explicit
26:11
intention of including all packaging material that is managed by Maine's municipalities, except for material that we
26:18
explicitly exempted ourselves from small producers or that are ones that are managed through our other successful programs.
26:27
I do not support exempting federally regulated product packaging in the EPR program. I believe it would be more
26:34
appropriate to acknowledge any packaging related design limitations, such as maybe what we just heard through change or
26:42
reduction in fees through the fee structure. This approach would protect municipal taxpayers or other compliant
26:49
producers from paying for a large and unknown volume of materials to be managed and more generally, exemptions are.
26:57
Ethical to the whole idea behind producer responsibility. I also think exemptions would add many administrative
27:05
complications or participating producers, since in the absence of having a report, they would bear the burden of having to
27:12
estimate the amount of exempt material that they were. It you know that we're in that part of the waste stream, so out
27:20
of principle, I believe that any packaging that is managed by our municipalities should be included in the program and
27:26
considerations for exemptions if there are any, would really only be for operational and public health reasons. And I did read
27:33
the entirety of the background information, I found
27:39
it very helpful in what I thought I saw through that was the fact that there were not a lot of requirements from the
27:45
federal government. That would somehow preclude these types of packaging materials from participating in the program. That seemed like
27:54
the regulations were more around labeling or types of closures or things, but not explicitly how much packaging or how big you
28:02
know what materials. So I really appreciate the work that you did because when we put that in the law, I don't think we knew the
28:10
answer to that question. And what I saw the answer to be was it's not actually regulated in.
28:16
The way we thought it might have been. Finally, I would just wrap up by saying that I would like to
28:23
request that the department remove reference to major substantive rulemaking from the implementation timeline. I do
28:29
not think there is a compelling reason why the program implementation should be delayed by 18 months in order to
28:36
consider these specific types of exemptions. The selection of a stewardship, organization and establishment
28:43
of the program could happen in parallel to the discussion of exemptions, because it's really a finer detail of the whole
28:50
program, I think it's quite clear we heard from a constituent already. Municipalities and taxpayers are in
28:56
urgent need of assistance. Recycling programs are still being closed down and there are communities that are holding out
29:03
looking for these funds and these support, but they are making that decision on a year by year basis and we could lose
29:10
more. Programs. The longer that this process takes. And that's why we passed this law on our governor supported it
29:18
in 2021. So I'll conclude with that. And I wanna thank you all for your time and consideration and for providing us this
29:24
opportunity, especially a hybrid version.
29:30
I do look forward to working with everyone here to implement what I think can be the most effective and most equitable EPR
29:36
for packaging program in our country. So thank you. Any questions?
29:51
I want to. Thank you, Senator. You're welcome.
30:00
The next speaker to the podium, which is gonna be.
30:06
Thomas Pizzuto with DecomRX
30:14
corporation. Floor is yours.
30:22
Hello, my name is Thomas Pizzuto. I am founder of Decom RX Corporation. We're a small early stage company located in
30:28
Pennsylvania just outside of Philadelphia. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
30:35
provide some comments about exempting certain federally regulated products in this case pharmaceutical product
30:42
packaging, namely HDPE bottle enclosure systems and folding cartoons. While my comments are specific to pharmaceutical
30:48
sellable unit packaging, they may also apply to other packaging materials. Where recordation of its final disposition holds what I'll call
30:57
value beyond compliance. Give a little context to my comments. My educational background includes, among other degrees, in Master of Science
31:05
and Quality assurance and regulatory affairs. The Temple University School of Pharmacy. I've worked in the
31:11
Pharmaceutical industry for more than 20 years with positions at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Johnson Johnsons, supply chain
31:18
at why? If I was responsible for corporate purchase of plastic, HDPE bottle closure systems and in this role, I came to
31:24
understand that pharmaceutical products are packaged in a variety of materials depending on the dosage form.
31:31
The role of pharmaceutical unit packaging is to provide chemical protection and containment, portion control and security to
31:39
maintain drug quality here in the United States, the predominant package system used to distribute drugs is high
31:45
density polyethylene, or HDPE. It is estimated that more than 4 billion HDPE bottles inclosures
31:52
enter and exit the US drug supply chain annually, like its name suggests, HDPE is a high density plastic with a semi to
32:00
non porous surface that is very stiff and it has good temperature resistance and water vapor qualities. These
32:07
physical properties are why FDA approved HDPE as a packaging material for both Food and Drug.
32:14
Since it is non biodegradable, it can take centuries to breakdown. It is imperative HDPE containers are recycled and used
32:21
again as a point of note, EPA recently developed guidelines regarding empty pharmaceutical containers and determine that
32:27
any residue is nominal and is not considered hazardous. Recycling HDPE has benefits. Studies have shown it is more
32:36
cost effective to produce from recycled HDPE than it is to manufacture virgin HDPE plastic. One kilogram of HDPE requires
32:46
1.75 kilograms of oil to manufacture. Moreover, ESE World B.V. carried out tests to demonstrate the HDPE can be
32:55
recycled at least 10 times. At Johnson and Johnson, I was the program director responsible
33:01
for the design and development of product serialization and traceability systems and process to comply with regulations
33:07
across 46 different countries. Here in the United States, the drug supply Chain Security Act,
33:13
signed into law on November 2013, requires segments of the supply chain to achieve product serialization and traceability
33:20
capabilities over a 10 year period ending November 27th of 2023. I oversaw the development execution of this global program
33:28
where I was responsible for packaging line retrofits, label, label artwork changes and new IT systems to uniquely identify
33:35
every sellable unit and track and trace those units from packaging to internal distribution.
33:40
To authorized external distributors, such as McKesson, Cardinal Health and Amerisource Bergen.
33:46
I offered many program capital appropriation requests, and every time I submitted them for management review came the the
33:55
invariable challenge. What can this do, beyond compliance to the law and so 'value beyond compliance' or VBC became a
34:03
tagline for those use cases. My team and I explored use cases both locally and
34:10
globally, with and without high-powered consultants, to develop a list of use cases organized along our internal
34:16
external supply chains. Many of these use cases were internally focused or enabling them required additional coordination
34:23
across internal plants and distribution centers. Several other use cases had external focuses including coordination
34:29
with J&J trading partners. Kindly take note of VBC or value beyond compliance as it does
34:35
come back into my comments here in a minute. September 2019 I left to change and I founded decomRX for the
34:41
purpose of decommissioning empty, serialized, sellable pharmaceutical units. This is my business. It wasn't recycling
34:48
per se. It was taking these bottles and decommissioning them. Decommissioning has been an
34:55
interest of mine since 2007 when working with RFID, and I learned the commands can be issued to an RFID tag to self destruct. So it
35:02
inspired me to consider how printed 2D barcodes and human readable text could also be decommissioned.
35:09
I was so inspired I applied for and was granted 2 patents in this space, so I offer that as pointed transparency. I do have
35:16
two patents that could be directly impacted in this. After leaving J&J and over the course of three years and
35:23
one pandemic, I designed and developed installed the test at a semi automated what I call it drop-to-light system that I
35:29
installed in a van along with the battery pack, inverter and two shredders. I then conducted the 90 day pilot with several
35:36
forward thinking pharmacies and southeastern Pennsylvania to determine if processing and recycling of end of life stock
35:42
bottles could be cost effective in self-sustaining. Specifically, the purpose of this pilot was several fold exercise. The
35:49
technology that I had developed was a prototype to inform the next generation confirmed dispenser
35:55
support to properly dispose recycle sensitive packaging materials, and that's making note here the support that I
36:01
received from the participating pharmacist was outstanding. They recognized the value of this and handling sensitive packaging
36:09
materials properly and one pharmacist actually thought kind of like Maine has or Michigan a bottle redemption law as a way
36:16
to incentivize pharmacists to participate in this recovery program. And finally I wanted to validate that decommissioning this event
36:24
data that I created had value beyond compliance, had value beyond the physical material that I was recycling that
36:30
plastic HDPE bottle. So instead of discarding the empty bottles, the participating pharmacies held them aside for
36:36
pickup. I processed them the curbside and I made this data available to the participating pharmacies. These containers
36:42
were imaged and serialized product information, or SPI. It's a 2D barcode on the side of these pharma bottles, along with
36:49
some human readable text. That was taken and I recorded it and I either held the bottle
36:54
because it was either unreadable or it was on a most wanted list that I was asked by a manufacturers to retain or the
37:02
2D barcode and the human readable text were altered. Some type of potential tampering is going on.
37:09
Once it's checked, they're cleared. I shredded the HDPE bottle, or if it was glass, I took care of the glass vial in
37:16
that case or paper in the instances of folding cartoons, this information was taken. This event data that I'm referring to
37:23
it either taken individually or in the aggregate, was analyzed for application across a range of use cases discussed below.
37:30
Over the next 90 days, a total of 70 pickups were made. On average, I collected 88 bottles per pickup, for a total
37:38
of 6125 bottles that I processed, representing 240 pounds of shredded HDPE, which at the time at an average price
37:45
on the secondary materials market of $0.64 a pound. Since picking up and processing the bottle was free of charge to
37:54
the pharmacist, they enjoyed an estimated $120.00 week cost avoidance since they didn't have to use their normal recycling
38:03
means, I was able to show that they saved some money acdp bottles used in pharmaceutical packaging range from a small 23
38:11
CC @ 0.3 ounce bottle up to a large 2100 CC @ 4.6 ounce bottle of HDPE.
38:17
I weighed over 1500 bottles and for my reporting purposes and analysis, an average weight of 0.623 oz per bottle.
38:32
HPDE closures ranged from 0.1 ounce to 0.3 oz with an average of 0.186 ounce per closure. Finally, on these bottles you have Outserts.
It's a piece of paper that attaches and has all the drug information. Those outserts paper weigh anywhere
38:49
between again 0.1 ounce to 0.3 ounce. So it's a whole packet system--the bottle and the paper outside. So if that's
38:58
being considered for exemption, it's too really highly recycled materials to HDPE and the paper.
39:07
In total, one of these bottles weighs between the closure and the bottle, and the outcert about one ounce of materials.
39:14
At the close of the pilot, I took the data I collected and I went ahead and developed 5 dashboards and these dashboards
39:20
addressed batches that I ran because this is all batch controlled, the serialized product information I gleaned. I
39:27
put those into dashboards and I developed these other dashboards to show pharmaceutical manufacturers, both branded and
39:33
generic, of the utility of gleaning these bottles, stripping away this information, and then properly recycling
39:39
bottle. Every one of these bottles has the manufacturer name on it, you know whose bottle is, whether it's.
39:45
out for recycling. And you could attribute the weight of these bottles directly
39:51
to the manufacturer. So if you're looking for a way for compliance, you can actually scan these bottles, leverage
39:57
what we put on there for the DSCSA law and leverage it for EPR. The dashboards represent my primary objective of the pilot,
40:05
namely to demonstrate the value of data gleaned from these discarded, serialized solar units. The my objective here
40:11
underpins my comments today, and that recycling can actually transcend the physical materials collected. You can drive greater
40:18
value if you look at this and perhaps strip some of the data off of it, like in the case of the pharmaceutical container.
40:24
That number that's serialized identifier, that license plate. There's no way it goes back to the originating manufacturer.
40:31
You know my activity here. I'm seeking for ways of closing the loop, adding value to process that HDPE container.
40:40
My last bit of comments here is by linking the physical and digital. I'm calling this physical circularity and digital
40:48
circularity. It's a value enhancer, and so I could see for Maine something like that helping offset where it's a value to not
40:55
only the plastic material, but also the data that's gleaned from it to help out set some of those harder to recycle
41:03
materials that may be struggling with. So the intent of my comments here today is to dissuade me from exempting
41:09
federally regulated pharmaceutical sellable unit product packaging such as HDPE bottles and folding cards. On
41:16
the contrary, I think this waste is exactly the kind of material Maine and every other state contemplating EPR legislation.
41:23
should look for to promote its physical and digital circularity respectfully submitted, Tom Pizzuto. Thank you. Thank you.
41:32
We'll open up the floor to anyone who has questions.
41:38
In house I have one. OK. You were talking about sterilized packaging? It's serialized. OHS realized so under the drug
41:47
supply Chain Security Act as of 2016, 2017, any pharmaceutical product sold in the United States needs to be DSCSA
41:56
compliant. So you'll see a little 2D barcode and a human readable text. So I meant to say it was serialized, not
42:05
sterilized. You don't know about sterilized packaging by any chance?
42:10
Degree of it I mean well, we were just reading that sometimes that exists and I was wondering maybe you know if that mean
42:16
that the package that you would normally use has been sterilized and has kept sterile prior to packaging or does that mean that
42:23
there's an extra package required? Ensure that when when something has to be sterile.
42:30
If that's not a question for you, I'm sorry, OK. Sorry. Thank you. And you, you have submitted those written. I I will
42:37
momentarily. Right. Thank you.
42:47
Questions. Doesn't seem so. So we'll move on. Yeah, we'll move
42:53
on. Our next speaker is. Christine Cummings with Maine Grocers and Food
42:59
Producers Association. Your're in-house. Yeah.  I don't have any prepared.
43:04
OK. Do you have any anything on perishable food? I was hoping you were gonna talk about that and don't have anything to speak
43:11
to today, but I will submit written comments as follow up. That would be great if you could. Thank you.
43:18
OK, so we have Shelby, Wright next with Casella.
43:32
So Sarah, much like your computer died this morning, my printer died this morning. So thank you very much for for
43:40
having us here to testify. As you know, for decades Casella has actually. Sorry, my name is Shelby Wright, and I'm the
43:47
manager of engagement for Casella Waste Systems. Thank you. And as you know, for decades Casella has invested in
43:55
the Northeast recycling infrastructure, including single stream collection.
44:00
Processing and sorting systems, which serve thousands of municipalities and businesses and recover hundreds and
44:05
thousands of tons per year over recycled materials. We believe that the best way to improve recycling outcomes in Maine is
44:12
through continued investment and existing infrastructure better public. Outreach and education and the strengthening of markets for
44:20
recycled commodities. To the extent that EPR for packaging might help drive these improvements, Casella is
44:26
generally supportive. Some of our observations on the topic of exemptions for certain specific
44:33
types of packaging include that some, but not all, of the materials obviously are already accepted at our many
44:41
recycling facilities and single stream programs across the state.
44:46
Many of those materials are observed in the recycling mix and that we received at our facilities and some leave as
44:54
saleable commodities headed to the markets and others leave as residuals. Specific quantitative data on the amount of those
45:03
materials that are currently in the waste stream is is not available today to have that kind of data would require
45:11
extensive detailed manual material audits at our facilities and would be.
45:17
Value added. How to say it would be very expensive to to manage with the
45:24
with labor and waste and bail breaks. That's pretty much all the comments that we had today was that the products that are
45:32
being recycled today should continue to be recycled going down the road.
45:39
Any questions? Any questions in house or on the web?
45:50
So you want to talk about bleach bottles, propane tanks. What would you like to talk about? Batteries.
45:58
Well, you collect bleach bottles, correct? We do. Yes. Do they go out in bales? They do. That's as a matter of fact,
46:05
high density polyethylene, HDPE. And so it's one of the more valuable commodities on the market as exactly. And it would
46:12
be impossible to discern between, like, a dandruff shampoo bottle and a regular shampoo bottle, say on the
46:19
regular line with our workers on the in the plan. So it'd be an incredible.
46:27
Auditing process that will require a lot of Labor, intense intensity.
46:36
Me, I think that that wraps it up for you. Thank you very much.
46:46
OK. So is Christine Adamowicz here?
46:56
Yeah. She's attending from. Over the web. 
47:16
Hi there can everyone hear me? OK, I think I heard it. Yes.  So I'm just gonna dive
47:23
right in. So hello, everyone. Good afternoon. My name is Christie
47:29
Adamowicz and I am the economic development project manager for the town of Brunswick.
47:34
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in Rulemaking regarding producer exemptions. The town of Brunswick supports
47:41
Maine's extended producer responsibility for packaging program. We believe that packaging material that ends up
47:46
in residential recycling bins should be kept in the EPR system to the greatest extent possible unless that material is being
47:53
managed under a different product stewardship program and that we should be reimbursed for the responsible management of
47:59
producer packaging materials to the greatest extent possible. As a municipality, we cannot control the amount of end type
48:07
of packaging that is sold or offered in our community. Only the producers can. This makes it very difficult for us to take
48:13
control of costs, especially when the market for recyclables is down. The EPR law puts the cost of recycling on the
48:20
producers who make and have control over their packaging, and that helps us get away from paying for something that is
48:26
beyond our control. This basic principle is why we don't support exempting packages that have special circumstances should be managed
48:34
through carefully planned fee structures. Putting the cost of exempt materials onto obligated
48:40
producers is unfair, and we can see EPR law, which in turn could negatively affect municipal reimbursements for the services
48:47
we provide. The exemptions already in the EPR law are fair and consistent with other EPR laws around the world. Any
48:53
packaging material that is federally regulated should be managed with fees, not exemptions, because that
48:59
packaging is managed by municipal recycling systems regardless. Thank you for considering the impact exemptions would have on
49:07
the efficacy of EPR program and the cost of exemptions to municipalities like Brunswick. We have submitted a letter to
49:15
the Maine's EPR e-mail address and the letter is signed by me and our Town Council Chair Meeson and town manager
49:23
Eldridge. Thank you very much. Thank you.
49:29
We'll go ahead and see if there's any questions in house or online if you have one, please raise your hand.
49:48
OK, thank you. No questions for you, Chrissy. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much.
50:00
OK. So is Sean Mahoney with us.
50:05
From CLF?
50:20
No. OK, So what about Michelle Kopa?
50:25
Michelle Kopa. With. Household & Commercial Products Association.
50:39
No comments, OK.
50:46
So that puts us at Kenneth Capron.
50:55
With no affiliation.
51:09
Or what about Melissa Gates?
51:16
Yes, with Surfrider foundation. OK, the floor is yours. Melissa.
51:25
Thank you.
51:33
Oh, hi. Thank you all thanks to DEP staff or organizing the rulemaking meetings and process. And we're all of course here to
51:42
help inform the rulemaking and not to relegate the need for EPR packaging in our state and part of the reason that the Surfrider
51:50
Foundation supported the EPR bill is really to get at single use plastic source reduction through incentivizing producers to green
51:59
up and minimize their packaging materials. So thanks to Senator Grohoski and Sarah.
52:04
From NRCM for their earlier comments, I now don't need to really say much more. They've really covered all of the points
52:11
that I was hoping to make today about exemptions, but I did just want to chime in, let you know I'm here and appreciative for
52:18
the process and listening to all of the comments. So thank you.
52:24
Thank you, Melissa.
52:31
There's no questions for Melissa is there.
52:41
No, we're good. So the next. Speaker on the list is Roxy Kozyckyj.
.52:55
With Advamed.
53:02
OK, so Roxy.
53:22
Will not be sharing any comments today and Next up would be.
53:28
Ann Lane. With Worthington Industries.
53:35
I believe she sent in a comment.
53:42
There she is.
54:12
Hi there. Good, can you hear me now? Good.
54:17
Yeah. Great. Hi, this, I'm Annie Lane. I'm the director of
54:22
sustainability for Worthington Industries. In our consumer products business. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
54:31
provide comments. So Worthington Industries is a leading US based manufacturer of
54:38
pressurized cylinders, both refillable and non refillable cylinders. So we heard reference earlier to propane cylinders and
54:48
that's what I'm here to talk about today. So similarly to the comments from Andy from AMERIPEN, we have
54:59
some concerns about inclusion of these products in the broader
55:05
base packaging legislation. 
55:18
So while these products are federally regulated by the
55:24
Department of Transportation and the National Fire Protection Association, that does impact their ability to be changed in
55:33
terms of recyclability or reducing the quantity of the packaging. There are minimum requirements for the steel
55:41
material or the aluminum material and wolf index thickness that are used in these products in these cylinders and
55:49
also there are special requirements for the. Transportation, handling, collection and storage of these
55:56
materials. As a result, we find that there are special considerations in
56:04
handling all pressurized cylinders, not just propane cylinders, but other types of gas cylinders that require
56:12
dedicated collection, transportation and management systems. These systems aren't really compatible with the
56:20
systems for packaging of nonhazardous products, and as a result we are concerned about including producers of
56:28
pressurized cylinders in the same. PRO system as producers of you know, more common non hazardous
56:35
household packaging. Umm. As a result, we would expect that the effectiveness,
56:41
and efficiency of such a program would be reduced by comingling these systems.
56:48
And we have seen examples in Canada where hazardous materials are collected in separate programs because of some of
56:58
these challenges rather than legislated in a common packaging program.
57:04
Similar to the exemption in Maine's current legislation for the Paint care program, we do recommend that Maine exempt,
57:12
pressurized cylinders from the general packaging legislation and instead consider regulating these products based on the
57:20
model legislation that Worthington worked with stakeholders in the state of Connecticut to development to to
57:27
develop so. Worthington would be pleased to work with Maine legislators and stakeholders, as we did in Connecticut.
57:35
To consider this exemption and develop this legislation, thank you for your consideration.
57:44
Thank you, Annie. Are there any questions for Annie and we do have one in
57:51
house. This is Senator Grohoski. My question is I don't know how
57:57
many different companies produce these sort of containers, but we do know that they are a problematic when they get in the
58:06
municipal solid waste stream. So we agree. I agree it's a problem and they require their own special handling. But not
58:14
knowing how many companies are involved. But for your company at least, have you considered the alternative collection
58:22
program? Opportunity that's offered in this law to set up your own system without us having to, you know, do additional regulation
58:30
through the form of another bill or something. I do think Maine lawmakers are interested in tackling this specific issue,
58:37
but I would. I know we would appreciate if you know, with your leadership and your industry's leadership and alternative collection
58:45
program, would be another option. So have you considered using that opportunity?
58:50
Yes, we have and we actually had a a conversation with the department in Maine shortly after the legislation passed
58:58
about that alternative collection program. We have concerns because we would be required to establish our own
59:06
program and participate in the existing larger probe packaging program in Maine at the same time, which adds significant,
59:15
you know, administrative burden and inefficiencies. So there's really not that incentive.
59:21
Umm, to separate an alternative system until we find out you know. What the true burden is, and if it will save us money to run 2
59:30
separate programs? So fortunately paintcare, which already was established, has a
59:36
full exclusion from the program and is able to run their own separate legislation. And that's a model that we are proposing to
59:45
pursue and states that are interested in legislation for this category of products.
59:55
I will say that we are working to organize the industry and gather the producers. It really depends on the gas type, how
1:00:03
many producers are involved in the market in the US.
1:00:08
We have about 8 to 10 leading brands that we are working with
1:00:13
to form our solution in Connecticut at this time.
1:00:21
OK. Thank you so much for that reply. Are there any other questions for Annie?
1:00:28
It looked like there was a question in the chat. Would you like me to respond to that?
1:00:37
See if I can. I think there was a question about whether these products
1:00:44
could be refurbished or refilled and I can't respond to that. It depends on the cylinder type. According to the cylinder
1:00:52
specification, some are designed with the capability of being refilled and refurbished. For instance, your gas grill tank is
1:01:00
a refillable cylinder and some are designed to be non refillable because of the smaller size and the convenience
1:01:08
to consumers. So we have found that there is a need for. Systems to collect these cylinders at end of life,
1:01:15
whether they can be refilled or refurbished or they need to be recycled and so the program in Connecticut that we're working
1:01:23
on addresses both types of cylinders and certainly the collection is simplified for the refillable cylinders. There's an
1:01:31
exchange system network already in place for the 20 pound cylinders, but there is certainly some leakage from that
1:01:38
system that we plan to address through through the working Connecticut.
1:01:46
OK. Thank you so much for that reply as well. No problem. I don't know. There's no other questions at this time, so thank you.
1:01:59
We miss anything else in the chat. I thought the chat was turned off.
1:02:07
OK. So Next up, we have Zoe. Malia.
1:02:13
I do not have any comments. OK. 
1:02:22
Next up, we have John Salvador. 
1:02:38
Found the floor is yours.
1:02:56
Hello.
1:03:18
We hear you. Yes. Uh, apologies. I when I had registered, I was under the
1:03:26
impression that I was gonna. You were looking for. Uh folks, that if they wanted to provide comments on that, that's
1:03:35
what I was checking, so I apologize. I I do not have any presentations for today.
1:03:43
No problem. Thank you.
1:03:50
I'm going to keep moving down the list. Is Curtis Picard with us?
1:04:04
Retail Association of Maine. They are giving you the floor.
1:04:17
Good afternoon. Can you hear me OK? Yes, good afternoon to you.
1:04:22
I'm Curtis Picard. I'm President, CEO of the Retail Association of Maine. I didn't present a formal written
1:04:28
comments, but plan to. After this. I'll be fairly brief. I was also hoping that there was gonna be more of a presentation
1:04:37
of the background document as well, because while I may be considered an expert in retail issues, I'm not an expert in
1:04:44
federal regulations. So I did read through the document. I'll share a couple brief thoughts, but we'll expand upon them after
1:04:52
this meeting and before the 22nd. I do think there is merit in some of these exemptions, but I recognize that overall the
1:05:00
goal of this law is to grow and promote the use of more recyclable packaging, but
1:05:07
certain products will certainly be limited and how they may be able to change their packaging to become more recyclable.
1:05:13
Because they're federal regulations or other limitations. Umm, I did have a question for the department in regard to
1:05:21
perishable food. In relation to dairy products versus frozen food ice cream for
1:05:27
example, I'm not sure if that's going to be considered a dairy product or frozen food and whether or not it would
1:05:34
presumably be exempt. Umm. And then just overall, you know, I know we're talking about
1:05:41
recyclability and this law is really putting recyclability at the top of the heap, terms of packaging, design and structure.
1:05:49
But there are other purposes of packaging namely food safety, perishability, product protection, a weight and
1:05:56
relation to transportation costs and supply chain and theft prevention. I do also think and would like more time to take a
1:06:05
closer look at how the Maine Drug Takeback program is gonna intersect with this law. We
1:06:10
reached out to your DEP colleague earlier this week for an update on that program. We know it's moving along, but we'd like the
1:06:17
little bit more information as to how that rollout is going to happen because it's I think everybody knows a lot of
1:06:24
prescription and over the counter medications will be handled through that way stream and whether or not that's going
1:06:31
to be considered an alternative system. Umm, so I think I'll just close by saying, without reasonable
1:06:37
exemptions. You know, will Maine consumers be prevented from accessing perhaps vital products because of the cost of
1:06:44
participating? Thanks for your time.
1:06:53
Thank you. Stick around. We're just gonna wait to see if anybody has any questions for you.
1:07:17
Curtis, so thank you. Be sure to send us a written copy of your comments if you haven't already done so.
1:07:25
Will do. Thank you. We'll see you on the 22nd.
1:07:31
OK, so Next up. Ginny Siller.
1:07:36
Ginny Seller. My apologies. Are you with us from Animal Health Institute? OK.
1:07:46
 Thank you so much. Hi, my name is Ginny Stiller. I'm the director of Government
1:08:17
affairs at the Animal Health Institute, the National Trade Association, representing companies that make medicines
1:08:24
for animals, the drug vaccines, flea and tick products, medical devices, all used to keep animals healthy. Our Members are
1:08:32
sponsors for most of the pioneer animal drugs used by veterinarians and producers in Maine. And as such, we have an
1:08:39
interest in this rulemaking process, and we do request that animal health products be.
1:08:44
Exempt from this requirements, the animal health industry is committed to improve sustainability in all facets of
1:08:51
the supply chain, including the packaging used to deliver safe products to customers. Sustainability is 1 factor among
1:08:58
many that animal health companies must consider in the packaging equation. Medical products for animals are
1:09:13
required to be sterile. And enclosed in packaging with tamper resistant seals to
1:09:18
protect public health. Also, depending on the requirements from the governing federal agency, products may be labeled
1:09:25
with specific instructions on disposal. Umm, our sustainability efforts take place in the context of
1:09:32
meeting requirements by federal regulators. Animal health products are licensed and regulated by three different
1:09:38
federal agencies, each with their own unique packaging standards and requirements. Drugs and devices are approved
1:09:44
by the US Food and Drug Administration under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and sponsors must specify for the
1:09:51
agency. The materials of construction, the packaging use for each product, and provide data showing those factors will
1:09:57
maintain stability of the product. The rich shelf life. Consequently, each product has
1:10:02
its own unique proved packaging and changes to product packaging take months of development, followed by a full FDA review
1:10:10
and approval. Vaccines and biologics and diagnostic test kits are
1:10:16
approved by the US Department of Agriculture under the Virus Serum Toxins Act. Manufacturers are required to ensure packaging
1:10:24
maintains the integrity of the product, so temperature is a major consideration. Packaging must also accommodate detailed
1:10:32
USDA labeling requirements. And then flea and tick prevention products are approved
1:10:38
by the US Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. So Fifra
1:10:45
authorizes EPA to establish standards with respect to the package container or wrapping in which a pesticide or a device is
1:10:53
enclosed in to protect children and adults from serious injury or illness resulting from accidental ingestion or contact
1:11:01
with pesticides or devices regulated under FIFRA. Additionally, FIFRA requires EPA CRP standards to be consistent
1:11:09
with those established under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.
1:11:16
Additionally, other states that have been enacted, producer responsibility, packaging and recycling programs have excluded
1:11:24
animal health products. Those states are, you know, the California program enacted this year. The Colorado program
1:11:31
enacted this year and the Oregon program enacted in 2021 all exempt these products. And so you know, the Maine statute
1:11:38
specifically points to the agency, to the regulation of human Drugs, devices, biologics and products that should receive
1:11:46
an exemption. In in order to treat animal medicines in an analagous manner, exemption should include products for animals regulated
1:11:53
under the federal food, Drug and cosmetic fact. The Virus Serums Toxin Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
1:12:00
and Rodenticide act. But so we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony today and look forward to continuing this
1:12:07
dialogue and discussion with you on this exemption request and appreciate your consideration.
1:12:17
Thank you, Ginny. Stick around in case we have any questions for you. We've got one.
1:12:23
Jenny, can you hear me? Yes.
1:12:28
My name is Sarah Nichols. I'm with the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and I appreciate all of the the
1:12:34
complex web of regulations that your industry has to undergo and that this is another one of those. But.
1:12:41
I guess my question is, so the the material that that's.
1:12:47
On your products that's coming into Maine's communities is still going to be in Maine's municipal waste stream. And if 
1:12:53
the people that you represent are not paying for that. Who do you think is the right responsible party who
1:13:00
should be paying for the management of that material?
1:13:05
That is a great question and I think. I will echo some of the comments that Andrew Hackman
1:13:14
made earlier, too. I mean, I think this conversation is one that we definitely wanna continue and I'm happy to
1:13:21
provide additional details on on who we think that should be and how that could work for, for these products before and on the
1:13:28
22nd. You do that. Is that one quick follow up so any exempted material is
1:13:34
technically left on. It's the burden of the Maine taxpayer to pay for that material. Do you think that's an appropriate
1:13:41
source of funding to manage that? Again, I'm happy to to continue that conversation and and and
1:13:49
and answer your question. I can follow up afterwards with the either via e-mail and answer those questions for you. And
1:13:56
then on the 22nd as well is that dialogue continues. Happy to do that.
1:14:08
I have one more, one more question. So you mentioned that OK. the other three states who passed EPR laws had exempted this
1:14:14
packaging type. But this law is in effect all over the world. Are there any other jurisdictions in Canada or
1:14:20
Europe that exempt this material? That is also a great question and I'm happy to pull that. I
1:14:28
don't have that in front of me at the moment, but can pull together those details and outline and answer that specific
1:14:34
question after today's meeting. Happy to do that as well. Great. Thank you.
1:14:42
Any questions online for Jenny?
1:14:50
Yep, we got another question. So as you were going
1:14:57
through the different agencies that govern animal health. Umm. And the concerns you voiced I I'm not quite sure. I heard a
1:15:05
concern. Is it that because of the nature of animal health and the drugs and the active ingredients and such that
1:15:12
you're in a tight spot about redesigning your packaging or the current forms that you're using for packaging today are
1:15:18
not recyclable friendly because of the drugs they could they contain? I didn't quite understand what you're
1:15:24
standing on to say that you wanted exemption. Yes, sure. So you know, as we look at the the packaging for
1:15:32
our products, right, the three agencies have their specific and unique requirements, sustainability being one of
1:15:38
those factors. Other factors that we have to really look into that is the protection of adverse reactions to our
1:15:45
products or moisture, light temperature variations, protection against biological contamination, physical damage.
1:15:53
You know, carrying the correct information, identification of the product's ability to ensure these requirements are met
1:16:00
throughout, you know, the whole shelf life of the product. And so when we have these products that are regulating these
1:16:07
agencies, they each one has to be approved. So it's not just the product, but it's the packaging that also has to be
1:16:13
improved approved excuse me at these agencies. So the amount of review process, it's a very rigorous review process. It
1:16:20
includes, you know, an environmental assessment it includes. At these agencies for not only our products but also the
1:16:28
packaging and so there is a very. It it is a very regulated space and so as far as exempting it is
1:16:36
one we do focus on sustainability in our packaging, but also we have so many factors that we have to meet by each
1:16:44
individual federal regulated agency. Does that help answer your question? I'm happy to provide some more information to
1:16:53
an additional follow up as needed. Again, I think what I'm hearing, Jenny, is that you're describing
1:16:59
possible changes to packaging. You know, after you have to do this regulatory review that you thin the wall of
1:17:06
a bottle by a millimeter. Now you gotta do a vapor barrier transmission kind of test. And right, you have to show that
1:17:12
stability. I'm just saying, like, the products that you have approved today, the packaging that is approved by the three
1:17:19
agencies that you work with are those recyclable materials.  I don't really understand where you're not able
1:17:26
to. No, I mean they, they they do. But I think and I'm happy to
1:17:32
follow up with real specifics on the exact what the packaging is. I think maybe that will help answer your question more. But
1:17:40
in terms of looking at how the packaging is is approved by these agencies to make sure that there is no problem with the
1:17:47
product and the contamination and that it is you know with the sterile and the tamper resistant seals there is just a lot that
1:17:56
goes into it. But I'm I'm very happy. That to pull additional information to help you answer
1:18:02
that those questions and and outline kind of what the specific packaging materials are as needed. So I'm happy to do
1:18:09
that too. We are happy to do that. Thank you.
1:18:17
We have another question for you. 
1:18:22
You understand that this law is not requiring any design changes to your packaging?
1:18:33
Correct. I we do know that, yes. But as we look at what other, uh,
1:18:39
similar to what Anne and Andy Hackman said earlier, as we look
1:18:44
at how these, you know, drugs, biologics, pesticide products are are.
1:18:51
Are taken care of within this type of program that there may be another way to to do that and we were happy to have those
1:18:57
conversations. And as we look at what's happening in other states. You know, we are these products are exempt in other statutes. So
1:19:06
like I said, California, Colorado and Oregon. And so we are happy to continue that dialogue on this request and and
1:19:13
answer those questions to help provide a full picture of of the reason for our exemption request.
1:19:24
Thank you so much. Seems like we've we've had all of the questions answered that
1:19:32
we need answered. Thank you so much, Ginny. OK. Thank you.
1:19:37
Although it would be helpful if.
1:19:43
You could follow up with a little information on the the types of materials that you're products are currently in.
1:19:51
Yeah, absolutely. I will make sure to answer all of the questions that were received today in more detail and provide
1:19:57
additional information. Thank you. 
1:20:03
OK, so that brings us to the last person on the list that
1:20:09
signed up in advance to share comment and that was Chris Forth.
1:20:14
Chris 4th with Johnson Controls.
1:20:20
So we're just looking for Chris Forth.
1:20:40
What we'd like to do now is just.
1:20:48
Open up the floor. Is there anybody who did not sign up in advance to share comments and would like to do so at this
1:20:56
time?
1:21:05
If you are interested, just. Raise the hand and we'll give you the floor.
1:21:21
It doesn't seem that anybody is needing to share
1:21:26
So everybody has had the opportunity to share a comment that during these the is there any has any other questions come
1:21:42
up that anyone wants to ask since we do have some time.
1:22:08
You notice there are a few questions in the chat.
1:22:16
Do we wanna get those answered?
1:22:24
These are the questions we're gonna follow up on. OK. Thank you. Alright. So I guess we'll close. 
1:22:32
Go back to when Curtis was talking, I think for the 22nd.
1:22:38
Like for example you talked about like what the department's opinion is on perishable. I think what we're looking for is
1:22:45
what your opinion is on perishable to give. To to tell us, so we can consider it.
1:23:07
Reminder that we would like people to come back on the 22nd. We're hoping to actually give
1:23:14
people a minute to think about what they've heard and. Then you know discuss this.
1:23:21
More in depth in the 22nd yeah. So the the way we're thinking about we're gonna take everyone's written comments and make them
1:23:36
available. To everyone, not just the attendees, but to everyone who's
1:23:42
accesses our website, and we're gonna come up with the summary.
1:23:48
The 22nd will be more of an open. Discussion of like you know where what are the issues that
1:23:55
came up. And have that back and forth as to.
1:24:02
With which is the other about these issues? So not only were there comments shared verbally today, but there
1:24:09
are some comments that were just submitted to us in written form and so you might not have most you will not have heard those
1:24:16
comments. So we do suggest that when you visit the program's website and these comments are made available that you screen
1:24:23
through those, especially if you're planning on attending the 22nd meeting. That way you'll be as informed as you possibly
1:24:30
could. For that discussion that we plan to facilitate on that on that
1:24:35
day, right. So I mean the first this first meeting would say let's hear everyone's.
1:24:42
Uh comment comments on exemptions and then provide them for everyone to see so that everyone kind of sees what
1:24:48
everyone's. Thinking and then 22nd is when we'll have a more of an open
1:24:54
discussion on. On on those comments that were given today.
1:25:01
Do you have a requested deadline for any written comments prior to the December 22nd meeting so that those can be circulated or
1:25:09
placed on the website ahead of time? 
1:25:17
We we can technically we can get them on within a couple days on
1:25:24
the website. We'd ask people to provide them as soon as possible, but we're
1:25:31
not going to stop comments. 
1:25:38
If we can get them before the meeting. Few days before the meeting, then they'll be available for
1:25:44
everybody. If we don't get them until like they have a meeting, then they might not, then
1:25:51
everybody would not have been able to see them. But that being said, we'll still accept comments.
1:25:58
If after the meeting, even right after, that'll help. Us with the with the rules that we do eventually develop and
1:26:05
the discussion on the 22nd guided by the document you set out ahead of time. 
1:26:20
We can Very well. Use that as a framework. OK, yeah, for sure. I mean, I think part of it's gonna be what
1:26:26
we actually get for. Comments here, and if there's if there's issues that not.
1:26:31
everyone agrees upon.
1:26:42
Where we need dialogue back and forth, then that's what we'll concentrate on on the 22nd.
1:26:49
Again, thank you. So I get that
1:26:55
this session a little bit unique as we're talking about exemptions and that's not exactly something that the
1:27:01
department can put a rule out on. You know it's like, are you gonna do an exemption or not type of dialogue for future. The
1:27:07
future meetings, are we gonna be responding to a proposal at the department says or sort of articulates like a straw man
1:27:13
like we've done on other work sessions and other rules or are we gonna be just throw an issue our perspective on these issues
1:27:20
out there so we can understand for the future. More substantive meanings. So we're sort of we're hoping to get to a point
1:27:28
eventually where we can like throw out some straw men, but our our intent with these initial meetings is to just get
1:27:35
everyone's thoughts and gather them to help us create that straw man. And then we are hoping once we get
1:27:42
beyond that phase, be able to throw some things out prior to obviously giving draft rules to the board in this next December.
1:27:50
So that's and the next step that would be the next step. So we're going to do another round of these? No, not
1:27:57
necessarily. 
1:28:04
No, I think I think as soon as we have those meetings, we're
1:28:10
gonna be getting going on working on this. You know, this one's kind of a simpler one, but.
1:28:17
You know, after we talk about municipal reimbursements, we're already working on it,  but.
1:28:22
We feel like. Will be better placed to to create a a real proposal after we've we've gotten some information and then once we
1:28:29
have that information we can create a proposal and get just a lot of back and forth. Like Brian said, we're 
1:28:36
not stopping comments at any point. We're taking comments all the way through. If you get something like that's that
1:28:42
e-mail address, MainePackagingEPR@maine.gov, please send away. The first meeting is to get everyone's.
1:28:50
comments so that we can develop that straw man idea for the second meeting. So I mean there will be you know it's it
1:28:58
helps us because we could there maybe issues that we just don't think you know we try to be as encompassing as possible but
1:29:06
there may be issues that that we might not hit that someone else may think is important and it would be better to have that
1:29:14
sooner than later because. December of 2023 is not that far away.
1:30:05
Thank you guys very much. OK. Yes. I'm just thinking of any other closing remarks that we haven't already touched on.
1:30:12
Which I think we've touched on them all. We emphasize what's going on in the 22nd, just reminding you all to send in
1:30:20
your your comments written form. If you have it already.
1:30:26
The website has recently been updated so you can
1:30:34
access all the newsletters there. Any links to register for future meetings there and The background information documents
1:30:43
will be linked there, so it'll be a more resourceful visit.
1:30:50
Thank you all for taking the time to join us today
1:30:55
and starting to circulate your thoughts and your ideas.
1:31:00
Because. Where where I need of hearing them. Any other remarks?
1:31:09
Think we're good. Hey, thanks, everyone. Thank you. Thank you for attending.