0:0:0.0 --> 0:0:0.630
Breton, Mary B
Hey.
0:0:38.680 --> 0:1:4.610
Breton, Mary B
Hi everyone. I want to thank you for attending the second of the department stakeholder meetings for the Extended Producer responsibility program for packaging. We don't have a podium for people to speak and we want people to be more out there with the speaking. I've got 1 camera set up, so it sees everyone in the room.
0:1:6.650 --> 0:1:22.580
Breton, Mary B
I am Brian Beneski, the head of the Department Sustainability Unit, and I will be handling technical issues of the meeting along with Mary Breton, who is with our Commissioner’s office. I would also like to introduce Elena Bertocci and Jessica Nadeau. Raise your hands. Thank you.
0:1:23.470 --> 0:1:32.540
Breton, Mary B
They are in the sustainability unit or the staff in charge of implementing the EPR for packaging program. They will be acting as the moderators for this meeting.
0:1:33.620 --> 0:2:2.900
Breton, Mary B
This is only our second meeting. There may be some technical bumps that arise, so I ask for everyone's patience. If those happen, we will make sure that everyone who wishes to make a statement or ask a question will get the chance to do so. I would also like to add that this meeting is being recorded and that the recording should be available for public viewing after the holidays. Additionally, a transcript will also be made of this meeting and that will be available with any additional comments received through a link on the program’s website.
0:2:4.430 --> 0:2:9.350
Breton, Mary B
These meetings are part of the stakeholder process initiated by the department.
0:2:10.380 --> 0:2:19.800
Breton, Mary B
The first meeting, which was held two weeks ago, was to provide a chance for stakeholders to present comments and allow all the stakeholders to review each other's comments.
0:2:20.690 --> 0:2:28.920
Breton, Mary B
This second meeting provides an opportunity for the stakeholders to ask questions of each other regarding the various positions presented.
0:2:29.730 --> 0:2:37.220
Breton, Mary B
As an attempt to clarify, I'll use an example. I'll use the topic ice cream. Is it perishable as an example?
0:2:37.980 --> 0:2:44.30
Breton, Mary B
That determination of ice cream as a perishable item has come up of as a topic that needs clarification.
0:2:44.720 --> 0:2:57.730
Breton, Mary B
So at this time in these meetings, the department is not going to present the determination as to whether ice cream is perishable or not. What we want to hear from you, the stakeholders.
0:2:58.430 --> 0:3:7.190
Breton, Mary B
The determination of ice cream is unclear and needs to be addressed. Additionally, I think ice cream should be considered perishable because of X.
0:3:8.230 --> 0:3:28.60
Breton, Mary B
If another stakeholder feels differently, then that stakeholder should provide comments that ice cream should not be considered perishable because of why. So that kind of illustrates how we want the meeting to go. We're looking for input from you and to listen to other stakeholders and provide input about those comments.
0:3:29.60 --> 0:3:53.530
Breton, Mary B
The information from all the comments submitted and the discussions in these meetings will be used as the basis for drafting rules that will be submitted to the Board of Environmental Protection as part of the formal rulemaking process in December of 2023. That is when we are legally required to submit the rules to the board. Comment submittal is not limited to attendees of this meeting.
0:3:54.450 --> 0:4:6.810
Breton, Mary B
The department will accept all comments for consideration that are submitted in writing. Additionally, new or additional comments can be presented at any time through the EPR for packaging e-mail address found on our website.
0:4:8.260 --> 0:4:23.180
Breton, Mary B
This meeting’s focused topic is on producer exemptions as outlined in the background information document the department prepared for this meeting series. We asked that discussions be kept to the specific topic, as later stakeholder meetings will focus on other topics.
0:4:24.50 --> 0:4:31.40
Breton, Mary B
Jessica will start off the meeting by addressing a couple of misconceptions that we have noticed in the comments, and then raise some questions.
0:4:36.600 --> 0:4:47.900
Breton, Mary B
As this is both an in person and virtual meeting, we ask that those who wish to speak raise their hand and hold your statements until a moderator recognizes you to allow us time to make you so everyone hears your question and/or comments.
0:4:48.550 --> 0:4:53.760
Breton, Mary B
You do not have to be attending in person to ask a question or make a statement. Just use the raise your hand feature on Teams.
0:4:56.990 --> 0:5:0.280
Breton, Mary B
And with that, I'll hand the meeting over to Elena and Jessica.
0:5:2.280 --> 0:5:10.640
Breton, Mary B
OK, good afternoon, everyone. Some of you are probably here and we're also part of meeting one. So thank you for returning to.
0:5:13.40 --> 0:5:21.620
Breton, Mary B
Contribute to the discussion that we're going to have during this meeting. So, I'm starting off with a few misconceptions.
0:5:22.310 --> 0:5:25.600
Breton, Mary B
And if there happens to be any, anybody that wants to provide any input after those, you're welcome to do so, but I'm just planning to kind of list off the misconceptions. There are two.
0:5:35.750 --> 0:5:57.570
Breton, Mary B
OK, so for the first one, the concern that packaging with toxic residue will get into food packaging, we find to be misplaced. The FDA does review manufacturing processes of all food contact packaging that contains recycled content to ensure its purity and we are suggesting for more information that you refer to the FDA's website, recycled plastics in food packaging.
0:6:13.840 --> 0:6:22.910
Breton, Mary B
The second misconception that we want to address is that packaging material covered by the EPR for packaging law, and recycled material are not the same thing.
0:6:30.160 --> 0:6:41.650
Breton, Mary B
For example, packaging material that's covered by mains EPR for packaging law does not include printer paper which is present in a single stream recycling.
0:6:42.320 --> 0:6:58.890
Breton, Mary B
Covered packaging does include many items that will not will not be considered readily recyclable, or will not be recyclable as shown by the numerous references in statute to packaging that.
0:6:59.810 --> 0:7:16.780
Breton, Mary B
Is not readily recyclable, so I'll just read over that sentence one more time to get through that clearly. Covered packaging does not include many items that are not recyclable, as shown by the numerous references in statute to packaging that is not readily recyclable.
0:7:20.20 --> 0:7:26.920
Breton, Mary B
And we're just going to take a moment to see if any hands come up, if anybody in person has something to ask or add to those misconceptions.
0:8:0.400 --> 0:8:10.680
Breton, Mary B
Alright, so we do have a hand from Andy Hackman and Tony Smith. We're just making you presenters now so that you're available to unmute yourselves and contribute.
0:8:52.100 --> 0:9:1.190
Breton, Mary B
Folks on teams can hear Andy, they can. Ohh they can. Teams can. So let's just adjust our speakers.
0:9:30.380 --> 0:9:37.850
Andy Hackman
OK, a miracle of science and technology. Alright. Thanks everybody. I'm not sure if the comment about toxins was related to our (AMERIPEN) comment or not, I guess maybe I wanted to provide clarity on the point that we may have commented on not so much that that may not be considered a cover material or recycled or not.
0:9:54.530 --> 0:10:24.660
Andy Hackman
I think our content was relevant to if it's a covered packaging material that includes toxics, that it may be stuck in this non readily recyclable loop for a long time or for forever potentially because it includes toxics because I agree, FDA's got very explicit direction as to what types of resins and what types of sources of materials can go into food packaging. There are standards that are there, but the concern would be if a material that has been in contact with the pesticide, for example, will be, you know, in essence permanently deemed non readily recyclable. What are we going to do about that? Should it be in an alternative collection program? So we're trying to be constructive and trying to figure out the right solution here.
0:10:46.160 --> 0:10:53.240
Andy Hackman
It may not lend itself to being in single stream recycling systems, and considering it may never meet the definition of readily recyclable because of the contents of the product. So you know fuel those types of things will never be permitted in an FDA approved food contact or cyclable. So it may be linked very much to the definition of in the I forget what session issue that is where we talk about recyclability and whether or not recyclability includes whether or not material can end up in all products and packages.
0:11:25.580 --> 0:11:55.560
Andy Hackman
You know if downcycling to deck Trex decking material, if that's acceptable, then maybe that material does get to be considered readily recyclable, but because the exemptions are being discussed separately, we just wanted to flag that those issues are incredibly linked and may inform the other. So you know, it depends on how we consider things readily recyclable in that definition. So I don't know if that helps provide clarity because it felt like that kind of touched on one of the points that we had touched on.
0:11:55.660 --> 0:11:56.120
Andy Hackman
That's it.
0:11:58.440 --> 0:11:59.210
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
0:12:0.430 --> 0:12:14.920
Breton, Mary B
And we were referring to the discussion that happened last time rather than your comment, but thank you, that is a good point that you know we sort of separated these topics out, but they're not completely separate and readily recyclable is still to be discussed.
0:12:16.780 --> 0:12:21.730
Breton, Mary B
Trex decking does fit the definition that's defined of recycling.
0:12:22.110 --> 0:12:29.860
Breton, Mary B
And so yes, that's to be determined and toxics is required to be part of the fee structure.
0:12:32.300 --> 0:12:33.390
Breton, Mary B
I thought we had a couple more.
0:12:42.520 --> 0:12:43.90
Tony Smith
Hello. I got hammered with a cold today I could feel it coming from top to bottom, so that's why I sound like I sound and I'm glad you don't have me up on the screen. 
0:13:1.800 --> 0:13:10.190
Tony Smith
Can you give me some examples of not readily acceptable recyclables relative to covered packaging material that include toxics.
0:13:12.870 --> 0:13:14.310
Breton, Mary B
Is that a question for Andy?
Tony Smith
No, no, just anybody that might be able to answer it please.
0:13:39.290 --> 0:13:41.700
Breton, Mary B
And can we have you repeat the question, Tony?
0:13:42.60 --> 0:13:52.710
Tony Smith
Sure. The there was talk that covered materials that that include toxics are not readily acceptable for recycling. What are examples of those? Are those like oil, plastic, oil containers. I was going to call them cans, but they're not cans anymore. What would be examples of those?
0:14:11.410 --> 0:14:30.200
Breton, Mary B
I know Casella is here in terms of what they accept or not. I don't know if you know, I think it probably depends on the recycling program. What they usually does, what they accept at their facility or not accept, you know, readily recyclable as we were noting is not yet been defined and that is not the same as necessarily what's accepted in a recycling bin.
0:14:44.580 --> 0:14:46.120
Tony Smith
OK, alright. OK.
0:14:47.480 --> 0:14:55.530
Tony Smith
So there are some recyclables that can go in the bin that will not necessarily be part of the fee structure for reimbursement.
0:15:0.900 --> 0:15:1.820
Tony Smith
I see. I see.
0:15:1.170 --> 0:15:4.170
Breton, Mary B
So something like a something like paper.
0:15:13.230 --> 0:15:13.440
Tony Smith
Right.
0:15:7.900 --> 0:15:14.110
Breton, Mary B
Office paper is not packaging and so would not go towards reimbursement.
0:15:17.450 --> 0:15:20.180
Tony Smith
OK, that that helps. Thank you.
0:15:26.170 --> 0:15:34.270
Breton, Mary B
I don't know if you know or if Casella or somebody wants to talk about that. They did mention in their comments the first time around that they do get some materials that had products in them that are toxic or hazardous that some of those materials do come into their system; some of them come in and are accepted, and some of them come in and are contamination in their system was part of their comments to us.
0:16:3.610 --> 0:16:5.470
Breton, Mary B
Sarah? 
0:16:18.450 --> 0:16:31.690
Sarah Nichols
Great, thank you for hosting this meeting and thanks for having them. Also not feeling well, which is why I'm not there in person with you. Also I can't see the room, by the way, I'm this whole time. I don't know if it's just me or everybody else in the chat, but I can't see you.
0:16:32.670 --> 0:17:2.290
Sarah Nichols
And I guess my comment was to add a potential misconception to the list that I thought I heard last week and that is what an exemption means. So the way I'm interpreting it is that an exemption is something that's not going to necessarily to a product or a brand owner that's removed from the waste stream and managed in a different way. It's an exemption means that that material would still be in our waste.
0:17:2.360 --> 0:17:18.820
Sarah Nichols
It's just that that particular brand owner or producer would be exempt from paying the fees for it. So I just wanted to be to be clear on that and that's my interpretation. And if somebody else has a different interpretation, I'm happy to hear that too.
0:17:39.100 --> 0:17:53.810
Tony Smith
OK, I was waiting for you to recognize me. OK. Based on what Sarah said, would that end with to be determined through the lawmaking, through the rules, I mean.
0:18:0.830 --> 0:18:5.740
Sarah Nichols
Do you mean Tony to be determined if something is exempt would be through the rules?
0:18:11.90 --> 0:18:15.900
Tony Smith

Some are, I guess what I'm asking everybody. Will there be a list, a grand list of in and out, exempt nonexempt or just exempt and everything else is nonexempt? Will you be headed in that direction?
0:18:41.490 --> 0:18:45.740
Breton, Mary B
So the rulemaking will define exempt as opposed to not exempt.
0:18:48.980 --> 0:18:50.170
Tony Smith
Yeah, well.
0:18:49.670 --> 0:18:51.320
Breton, Mary B
But the clarification that I think we were trying to make, that I think Sarah said nicely too, is that they are different in a confusing way then.
0:19:1.760 --> 0:19:9.990
Breton, Mary B
What’s accepted for recycling? You know, in some EPR programs that is the way they do it. They say what's everything that's part of the program goes in this box, and then the producers deal will taking it apart. That is not the way the EPR law in Maine is set up.
0:19:23.190 --> 0:19:25.280
Breton, Mary B
So the exemption does not necessarily mean that it's not in the recycling.
0:19:31.150 --> 0:19:32.760
Tony Smith
Right, right. OK.
0:19:32.220 --> 0:19:35.20
Breton, Mary B
As was brought up last time, some things are.
0:19:37.450 --> 0:19:37.680
Tony Smith
OK.
0:19:42.80 --> 0:19:44.710
Breton, Mary B
They're different, I guess is is the confusing thing.
0:19:46.940 --> 0:19:52.20
Tony Smith
Will there be a master list prepared to be either exempt or nonexempt items?
0:19:57.320 --> 0:20:7.370
Breton, Mary B
Categories, exempt categories. We'll have an A list of any exempt categories. There are some in the law already and there's an opportunity to add to that through rulemaking.
0:20:8.180 --> 0:20:21.240
Tony Smith
But I think that if it's a broad brush, it's subject to interpretation. If examples as we run across them can be listed and compiled it would help immensely.
0:20:25.600 --> 0:20:26.630
Breton, Mary B
OK.
0:20:27.890 --> 0:20:28.790
Breton, Mary B
Well, not that it'll eliminate the discussion, was going to say argument, but just the discussion.
0:20:39.70 --> 0:20:41.130
Tony Smith
To a degree, this is Maine. Thank you.
0:20:46.620 --> 0:20:50.130
Breton, Mary B
I'm going to question are you people in remote world seeing us or nothing?
0:20:57.620 --> 0:21:6.180
Tony Smith
I'm seeing Sarah and some tables with people at them and I'm a dot with my initials.
0:21:3.700 --> 0:21:7.870
Breton, Mary B
Great. We're at the tables. 
0:21:17.30 --> 0:21:21.540
Breton, Mary B
So Jacob Cassidy has their hand up.
0:21:34.490 --> 0:21:35.520
Cassady, Jacob
Hi everyone, can you hear me?
0:21:36.30 --> 0:21:36.610
Breton, Mary B
Yes.
0:21:36.720 --> 0:21:46.250
Cassady, Jacob
Great, thanks. And I can see you and someone who is about to roll over their purse strap. That's how well I can see into the room. So it's nice to see you all there.
0:21:49.580 --> 0:22:2.770
Cassady, Jacob
I am Jake Cassidy with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. I was going to wait till later in this discussion to bring this up. I got a little confused on where we were in this and what was just being discussed.
0:22:3.890 --> 0:22:32.820
Cassady, Jacob
I represent home appliance manufacturers, so your large appliances, your portable appliances and the floor care appliances. With respect to exemptions, it sounds like what we're talking about is what materials wouldn't be included in the fee structure and what would. Large appliances whose packaging is removed as part of the installation into the home and does not go into the curbside stream should not be included for fees because producers would be able to show that this this material is returned to the distribution center.
0:22:42.710 --> 0:23:2.730
Cassady, Jacob
And therefore not have to pay for that packaging to be included. Oregon has a similar law. They have a similar exemption and then Ontario with what they refer to as the blue box system, also provides this. This I don't want to call it an exemption because no doubt it is not 100%.
0:23:3.850 --> 0:23:9.840
Cassady, Jacob
But materials that are not included in curbside recycling streams should not, therefore, be subject to a fee.
0:23:12.670 --> 0:23:13.130
Cassady, Jacob
Thank you.
0:23:12.400 --> 0:23:20.290
Breton, Mary B
Can you stay right there for a second? I have a question you said I think you said that producers can show the extent to which this material does go.
0:23:25.240 --> 0:23:34.970
Breton, Mary B
So, Lowe's is installing a washing machine and they come to your house and they leave the washing machine. They take the packaging back. Are you saying that the producer could show the extent to which that happens versus someone drives with their pickup truck to Lowe's and buys a washing machine and installs it themselves.
0:23:46.10 --> 0:23:54.700
Cassady, Jacob
That's correct. And that's why, you know, no doubt we can't say that 100% is taken back. So let me check the Oregon piece right in front of me if you don't mind. It says that if a producer may demonstrate to the department that a material is exempt from the requirements for a covered product that the material is collected through a recycling collection service not provided under the opportunity to recycle does not undergo separation from other materials that have commingled recycling processing facility and is ultimately recycled at end market. 
0:24:23.320 --> 0:24:24.970
Cassady, Jacob
So there are ways of showing compliance. And therefore no need for a fee.
0:24:27.260 --> 0:24:28.650
Breton, Mary B
Have you by chance looked at the alternative collection program? 
0:24:36.670 --> 0:24:49.330
Breton, Mary B
So that would, you know, I think provide a way. So I think what you're saying, let me just make sure I understand what you're suggesting, because I might not be understanding correctly what I think you're suggesting.
0:24:50.360 --> 0:25:3.910
Breton, Mary B
Say Lowe’s again, Lowe’s has the cardboard and is recycling the cardboard through its own means and knows how much it recycled. And so then they are the producer of that cardboard of the of the washing machine.
0:25:15.90 --> 0:25:21.80
Breton, Mary B
Can then say, look, we recycled our own. This is how much we recycled of our own.
0:25:22.240 --> 0:25:23.290
Breton, Mary B
Is that what you're saying?
0:25:23.300 --> 0:25:23.770
Cassady, Jacob
Yes.
0:25:24.860 --> 0:25:30.310
Breton, Mary B
OK, so I think that that would work. Have you looked at the alternative collection program? Cause I think that's the problem. You know, I think it'd be worth looking and seeing if that fits what you're talking about.
0:25:37.920 --> 0:25:41.560
Cassady, Jacob
Is that material that's on the EPR Maine website?
0:25:42.660 --> 0:25:44.20
Breton, Mary B
It's part of the statue.
0:25:45.220 --> 0:25:45.980
Cassady, Jacob
OK.
0:25:45.220 --> 0:25:49.790
Breton, Mary B
We can send it to you, but does anyone have any questions?
0:25:50.420 --> 0:26:6.530
Cassady, Jacob
Oh, right. I knew that there was. Pardon me. I knew there was the alternative collection program. I think what we're trying to suggest is that this would be part of that or simply noted as it as not included in the fee structures.
0:26:9.430 --> 0:26:16.600
Breton, Mary B
And just assuming that the stuff that someone takes to their home is minimal.
0:26:18.580 --> 0:26:28.460
Cassady, Jacob
To a degree. I mean I will submit comment with more detailed information that hopefully will explain this a little better than I am at this moment.
0:26:29.110 --> 0:26:31.760
Breton, Mary B
No, I'm sorry. I think that would be helpful. I think Kelly has a similar. OK. I think Kelly had something. Does anyone have any thoughts on additional thoughts on what Jacob said?
0:27:7.320 --> 0:27:7.910
Sarah Nichols
Great. Thank you. I guess I had a comment. So what Jacob was describing there, I feel like that's already kind of covered.
0:27:14.140 --> 0:27:25.330
Sarah Nichols
My understanding was that it was the net material left for municipalities to deal with was kind of baked in. So they would only have to report in the 1st place to this stewardship organization, the materials that they believe have ended up in the municipal waste stream, and they essentially could net out OR not even deal with the stuff that is not ending up being in the municipal waste stream.
0:27:40.250 --> 0:27:41.590
Sarah Nichols
Have I been misunderstanding or…
0:27:42.80 --> 0:27:42.490
Breton, Mary B
So, basically the producer would not even be reporting that packaging because it's not being given it to the consumer in a manner that will then end up in the municipal waste stream.
0:27:58.970 --> 0:28:3.320
Sarah Nichols
That was my understanding. So in a way, it's already off the hook.
0:28:3.660 --> 0:28:15.800
Cassady, Jacob
OK. I guess we didn't interpret it as that that it wasn't maybe as explicitly as you just explained it. So maybe if there's a way to be more explicit, that would be helpful and clarifying this point for us. Thank you.
0:28:21.860 --> 0:28:30.800
Breton, Mary B
So I think what I'm going to do is, Kelly, if you could just hang on one moment. We had something to preface before we give you the floor.
0:28:32.630 --> 0:28:33.300
Memphis, Kelly
Sure thing.
0:28:31.410 --> 0:28:37.990
Breton, Mary B
I'm going to respond to that same issue.
0:29:8.900 --> 0:29:41.800
Breton, Mary B
Which was that packaging material leaves a point of sale with or is received by the consumer of a product. We did find some confusion around distribution packaging and who is a consumer of a product. The consumer of a product is the entity using the product that includes a business that buys a product and repackages that product or uses that product to create another product. The removal of packaging use for distribution and transport does not make an entity a producer.
0:29:41.870 --> 0:29:55.720
Breton, Mary B
However, the addition of packaging does make an entity a producer and this is not the case for franchise franchisees.
0:30:1.450 --> 0:30:4.290
Breton, Mary B
I think, Jacob, what you're talking about is when it's not going when it's not going to the consumer, it's then distribution packaging. It's not going with the consumer, correct?
0:30:13.160 --> 0:30:28.580
Cassady, Jacob
Yeah, I guess I'm back to my original confusion. So let's just walk through this. You buy it from the big box. They use a third party to distribute it, install it into my basement. That third party takes the packaging material with them, along with the old appliance.
0:30:35.880 --> 0:30:43.810
Cassady, Jacob
Who is then the consumer of or the producer of that packaging? Is it actually the third party distributor?
0:30:45.340 --> 0:30:48.570
Cassady, Jacob
Is it the original manufacturer? Or is it the retailer? Or, where it's warehoused, which it may never even step foot in the big box, it could just simply be in a distribution center.
0:31:3.730 --> 0:31:19.780
Breton, Mary B
Right. So that space where sometimes it's distribution packaging and then sometimes it could go with either a third party or a consumer is potentially a little bit vague that should be clarified. Yeah, OK.
0:31:19.270 --> 0:31:27.320
Cassady, Jacob
Yeah, it's so that's what I think we're looking for clarification of that. That is simply not something that would need to be included in a fee structure. I don't want to use the word exempt, but just simply not included in the fee structure, so products that are not put on the curbside for that recycling should be discounted or removed from the fee structure?
0:31:47.680 --> 0:31:58.290
Breton, Mary B
I'm going to say not just curbside. We're not talking about what goes in the Blue bin, but like, it doesn't go with the consumer, the language in statute says it doesn't go home with the consumer.
0:31:58.990 --> 0:32:10.700
Cassady, Jacob
And not to beat this thing further, but and going home to the consumer wouldn't include when they remove it from the packaging on my front lawn before they bring the appliance into the home?
0:32:14.130 --> 0:32:14.520
Breton, Mary B
Yes.
0:32:16.310 --> 0:32:19.560
Breton, Mary B
Anybody have other thoughts on that. Karen and Kelly maybe?
0:32:24.340 --> 0:32:34.330
Memphis, Kelly
Yes, mines related, but slightly different. So I don't know if someone else was mentioned. If you have something specifically about this type of product and then I have another distribution thing to add.
0:32:35.260 --> 0:32:37.970
Memphis, Kelly
Anybody want to add directly to Jacob's comments before I jump in?
0:32:39.960 --> 0:33:10.200
Memphis, Kelly
OK. Thanks. Hi everyone. I'm Kelly Memphis. I wasn't able to join last meeting, so just quickly, I am the Director of State Government Affairs for the Mid-Atlantic and New England for the Healthcare Distribution Alliance HDA. We are the trade association that represents the nations pharmaceutical and healthcare distributors. So I think kind of related to what has been talked about here, but a little bit of a special circumstance due to the fact that we handle pharmaceuticals and other healthcare products.
0:33:10.830 --> 0:33:41.80
Memphis, Kelly
So, we had some questions relating to the definition of producer and trying to ensure that  pharmaceutical distributors weren't maybe unintentionally captured into that definition. The reason that we think it's helpful to gain clarity around that is because a manufacturer is the one who produces markets, owns the drug, handles all the FDA approvals, the marketing, all that sort of thing. And the pharmaceutical distributors are the vital link between those manufacturers and sites of care. So that includes pharmacies, hospitals and so on.
0:33:46.440 --> 0:33:49.780
Memphis, Kelly
We have over 260 customers that we serve in Maine.
0:33:50.460 --> 0:34:22.610
Memphis, Kelly
So we do believe that an actual producer, you know the manufacturer of a product, is the best person in position to handle the recycling and stewardship of a product because it can pass through many different entities in the healthcare supply chain, going through distributors, changing hands multiple times. And if that definition isn't just really clear, it could result in a product being taxed or traced multiple times down the supply chain. So we do think just maybe being a little more explicit could avoid some redundancies for the state.
0:34:23.60 --> 0:34:53.260
Memphis, Kelly
And in particular, we also think that it could be helpful because the definition of producer in this law is really similar to the definition of manufacturer and the drug stewardship law. But the drug stewardship law does include that explicit exemption for pharmaceutical distributors. So we think kind of making sure these two laws align better might and also create clarity. So that was kind of what I wanted to bring up and see if anyone had any thoughts. I did type up comments that kind of compare and contrast the definitions and those are explicit.
0:34:53.880 --> 0:35:7.610
Memphis, Kelly
Since I wasn't able to join the first meeting, I just wanted to kind of give a broad overview for the sake of time. So thank you so much for letting us have the opportunity to to kind of ask for clarity around that definition of producer.
0:35:9.690 --> 0:35:15.40
Breton, Mary B
Kelly, can you just say a couple things about what a pharmaceutical distributor is or what they do?
0:35:13.990 --> 0:35:44.770
Memphis, Kelly
Yes, thank you. Sorry, I didn't want to take too much time since I had missed that first meeting, which I did listen to the recording. So pharmaceutical distributors purchase in a wholesale model, the drugs from manufacturers, and they are then responsible for safely securing shipping and distributing that product again directly to the sites of care which include pharmacies, hospitals, etc. 
0:35:44.860 --> 0:36:16.550
Memphis, Kelly
They do not handle prescriptions or they aren't responsible for the healthcare formularies or anything like that, at the end, they aren't responsible for setting list prices or producing the products or the instructions, all that sort of thing. They're just that vital link in between manufacturers and sites of care. They work 365 days a year to fulfill orders that are coming from pharmacies and these other sites of care. They ship approximately 15 million products nationwide each year. 
0:36:16.630 --> 0:36:40.780
Memphis, Kelly
So just really are the ones responsible for making sure that those products arrive safely from manufacturers to healthcare settings. They save money to the healthcare system by creating these efficiencies and these big you know production centers versus a manufacturer having to contract with every single site of care and handle all those logistics themselves. The wholesalers take those logistics one. So really just kind of unseen vital link in the supply chain.
0:36:41.790 --> 0:36:45.700
Breton, Mary B
Do they put packaging? Do they package pharmaceuticals?
0:36:46.410 --> 0:37:20.620
Memphis, Kelly
So there are some pharmaceutical distributors have a repack relabel offering service, so not all distributors have the repack relabel operations, some do. So for the ones that do, yes, and I can speak broadly, but I can't speak to individual company operations. Every company can operate differently, especially maybe state by state have different operations. But for the distributors who do have repack relabel generally, yes they will take the product and then put it into new packaging, and they reference the manufacturer.
0:37:20.700 --> 0:37:43.890
Memphis, Kelly
They include the manufacturers instructions and that sort of thing, but they do there could be packaging introduced at that time for the repack relabel, but again, not all distributors do that or even the ones that offer it, it isn't. You know they don't do it with all the products. It's kind of a specialized sub offering sub operation that some distributors do.
0:37:45.480 --> 0:38:1.570
Breton, Mary B
Kelly, can I ask a question like Lowe's kind of has a designated pick up for some of their distribution packaging. Is there an offering like that on behalf of pharmaceutical distributors?
0:38:2.240 --> 0:38:5.750
Breton, Mary B
Or does all that packaging end up in the municipal waste stream?
0:38:6.80 --> 0:38:36.540
Memphis, Kelly
So a lot of it is captured through drug take back programs and I think would be the case here with Maine because I know Maine has a drug take back law as well. So they in that case again the manufacturer is more responsible for handling that because distributors are explicitly excluded in Maine's law and also in some other, you know, other laws that we see across the country. The norm is for the manufacturer to be the one to be responsible for that because they are in the best position to do that, but distributors often do voluntarily kind of work with pharmacies to help make sure that they have the pharmacies have the collection points to be able to work with the manufacturers, and that drug take back and recycling programs.
0:38:53.690 --> 0:38:55.810
Breton, Mary B
Does anyone have any thoughts on Kelly's comments?
0:39:0.600 --> 0:39:33.190
Memphis, Kelly
And then I did have a couple other kinds of questions. I thought it would be helpful to maybe hear clarity about the special nature of the pharmaceutical manufacturer and distribution and that drug takeback law just kind of explicitly excluding distributors might be helpful. But part of the reason too that could be helpful some because of the definitions of producers. I had some questions around, for example, the brand ownership. You know a distributor takes that physical ownership that the product, but all the FDA approval, the intellectual property that remains at the manufacturer.
0:39:33.270 --> 0:40:2.920
Memphis, Kelly
But you know, we did think perhaps there was a little ambiguity around that and then a little ambiguity around the import part of the definition of producer. It says importing into the state. Normally I think importation is associated with a broad like importing from abroad. So we wanted clarity maybe around does import mean if we're importing from Vermont into Maine, is that importing? Or is that actually meaning from abroad and just kind of getting some more clarity in general around that producer definition would be very appreciated.
0:40:4.170 --> 0:40:4.740
Memphis, Kelly
Thank you.
0:40:4.190 --> 0:40:17.20
Breton, Mary B
They were different question from when in the repack/resale cases are they repacking with the manufacturers branding or with new branding.
0:40:17.940 --> 0:40:45.450
Memphis, Kelly
So again, I can't speak to the individual operations. I believe for the repackage/relabel it's brand, their branding while referencing the manufacturer, but again, it would be that conversation is individual companies to see exactly how they each do it. But for general distribution, it's there isn't relabeling or there isn't any other branding other than the manufacturers.
0:40:46.980 --> 0:40:49.990
Memphis, Kelly
But I think for the repack/relabel there can be some rebranding.
0:41:14.100 --> 0:41:28.750
Taryn OConnor
Hi. Yeah, I just had a question. This is kind of a separate issue that everyone was talking about with this. So I don't know if we're off of this topic and we're ready for a new one or if I should just wait and hold on.
0:41:29.730 --> 0:41:35.580
Breton, Mary B
Let's get to Christine. Christine, did you have something to offer to what the topic is at hand?
0:41:38.60 --> 0:41:40.720
Breton, Mary B
Making you a presenter right now.
0:41:43.420 --> 0:42:9.620
Christine Cummings (Guest)
Hi, thanks. My question was specific back to when the discussion was about packaging along the supply chain. And just to clarify, it sounded as though you said it does include business to business packaging, for example, a restaurant that receives in pallets of pizza sauce, those larger economy size, pizza sauce containers would be part of this program because the restaurant itself would be that the consumer in that instance.
0:42:13.60 --> 0:42:16.700
Breton, Mary B
Yes, the restaurant is consuming that item.
0:42:16.410 --> 0:42:34.600
Christine Cummings (Guest)
OK, thank you. That was one of the questions I had in reviewing the perishable food producer exemption. That particular exemption did specify to retailers or direct to consumers where that information did not appear to be available in a statue, otherwise. Thank you for clarifying.
0:42:37.250 --> 0:42:38.580
Christine Cummings (Guest)
And I do have one other question.
0:42:40.890 --> 0:42:41.360
Breton, Mary B
Please.
0:42:42.910 --> 0:42:57.310
Christine Cummings (Guest)
Is it possible? It seems as though you may have had some prepared information specific to some of the misconceptions or some of the information that you're speaking to today is that information going to be added to the comment section or to the background posted materials?
0:43:1.440 --> 0:43:6.550
Breton, Mary B
Do you mean the stuff that you have that you mean the stuff that Jessica was reading earlier?
0:43:6.870 --> 0:43:7.360
Christine Cummings (Guest)
Yeah.
0:43:9.930 --> 0:43:15.480
Breton, Mary B
Yeah, we can, we can put what we read, what we've got written out where you get the transcripts and stuff.
0:43:15.120 --> 0:43:21.110
Christine Cummings (Guest)
It would be helpful. It was just challenging to capture that in the notes. So if you have it written, that would be helpful.
0:43:26.330 --> 0:43:26.790
Christine Cummings (Guest)
Thank you.
0:43:50.380 --> 0:43:58.170
Breton, Mary B
Back to Taryn or Sarah. Do you have something to speak to about distribution definition of producer?
0:44:22.960 --> 0:44:40.250
Taryn OConnor
Hey, so I just had a quick question in terms of an exemption. I work for Bona and we sell four care products and so we sell trigger sprayers, but we also sell refillable gallon containers that people can and consumers can purchase like a gallon refillable container that then they use that to refill the trigger sprayers. Do you have exemptions for the plastics and the products that we sell that are and do have refillable options? Are those options or is it just everything that we sell exempted?
0:45:12.500 --> 0:45:15.170
Breton, Mary B
So there's no exemption in the law for refillable or reusable packaging. If the package is reused so they to the extent that they're people are reusing those trigger sprayers, they're not buying a new trigger sprayer. So that's less packaging which is, which is why there's an exemption for it in the law.
0:45:34.270 --> 0:45:39.580
Breton, Mary B
The fee schedule is supposed to take reusable into account.
0:45:40.260 --> 0:45:43.10
Breton, Mary B
I don't know if anyone wants has any comments on reusable and refillable packaging.
0:46:9.800 --> 0:46:10.990
Breton, Mary B
Christine still in there. Christine, you mentioned in the in the language around the perishable food.
0:46:34.420 --> 0:46:42.700
Breton, Mary B
Sarah is definitely responding to Taryn’s comments.
0:46:50.570 --> 0:46:58.520
Sarah Nichols
Great. So for the reusable packaging, my understanding is it wasn't completely exempt, but like Elena had said that there was to be dealt with in the rules. So any container that's being reused and isn't ending up in the municipal waste stream does not have to contribute money to paying for the municipal waste stream basically.
0:47:19.90 --> 0:47:31.190
Sarah Nichols
I think that's why I would advocate for not exempting reusables. I don't think that is what you're suggesting, but because it should, if they're actually being reused, then they're not ending up this way. So you don't have to pay fees on them. It's baked in.
0:47:31.890 --> 0:47:42.350
Sarah Nichols 
I wanted to go back and just make a comment. Elena, you had answered Christine's question about the packaging, the perishable food packaging that's in restaurants, and I was surprised at the way you answered that because I thought that that business, back of the house packaging, wasn't included because that stuff isn't ending up in our municipal waste stream necessarily. Some, I think some places do that, but I guess I had a different interpretation of that.
0:48:6.950 --> 0:48:23.60
Breton, Mary B
So the word consumer, you have a different interpretation of the word and Christine noted that there is a different use of the word consumer in the perishable food section; it says to retailers or direct to consumers. So you're saying consider when you see consumer you would read that as a person, as opposed to the entity consuming a product.
0:48:30.670 --> 0:48:42.940
Sarah Nichols
Yes. I just kind of always go back to it. Does it end up for municipalities to manage or not? And that's the material that's included in the definition of packaging material. But I guess it's another problem with that perishable food definition.
0:48:43.840 --> 0:48:46.950
Breton, Mary B
But the I guess and the other thing is municipalities, some of that stuff goes into the municipal stream and some of it doesn't.
0:48:55.80 --> 0:48:57.360
Sarah Nichols
So OK, I guess we just need a little bit more.
0:48:59.590 --> 0:49:2.200
Breton, Mary B
Does anyone have any other comments on the definition of consumer?
0:49:4.560 --> 0:49:9.350
Breton, Mary B
Chrissy just put up her hand from Brunswick. She might have something to say about that issue.
0:49:15.70 --> 0:49:30.900
Chrissy Adamowicz, Town of Brunswick
Hi everybody my original hand raise was due to the same question about whether or not that business to business packaging is ending up in the municipal recycling system, but basically whether or not the municipality is managing it.
0:49:32.100 --> 0:50:3.790
Chrissy Adamowicz, Town of Brunswick
My original understanding was that if it didn't end up in those municipal recycling bins, it wasn't covered under EPR. But I will say that if it is, that means municipalities can increase their recycling rates and manage it and make sure that they offer those businesses that service. So I think that it could end up being a good thing because you know that that sector is they're kind of left on their own in some cases to figure it out. And if it if that we could potentially offer that service, that could be a really good thing for recycling rates.
0:50:7.270 --> 0:50:8.90
Chrissy Adamowicz, Town of Brunswick
That's all I had to say.
0:50:21.880 --> 0:50:26.50
Breton, Mary B
So let's hear from Sarah Guest.
0:50:45.630 --> 0:50:46.760
Sara
Can you can hear me now?
0:50:47.600 --> 0:50:48.690
Breton, Mary B
Yes, thank you.
0:50:49.380 --> 0:50:56.410
Sara
Right. My name is Sarah Languet, and these dialogues are wonderful.
0:50:57.120 --> 0:51:1.970
Sara
I understand this is a public hearing to listen to the stakeholders in this process of defining the law for packaging and recycling. Has this group looked into or consider the word of national organizations like the Michigan State Packaging school?
0:51:28.440 --> 0:51:30.460
Sara
Michigan State Packaging in school.
0:51:35.400 --> 0:51:38.920
Breton, Mary B
We’re not familiar with the Michigan State Packaging school now.
0:51:40.980 --> 0:52:10.320
Sara
The Michigan State Packaging school is a premier entity of packaging, development and packaging policy in the world. Actually, there are one or two more entities around the world that does this, but basically, they are it into the development of packaging, preparing students to go in the world and help the industries determining how their products should be packed, whether in plastic, glass or a combination of them, and then also they have a small department that consider the impact of packaging environmentally.
0:52:27.190 --> 0:52:29.600
Sara
And I suspect that they have an understanding of how other states develop policy around this and they will be probably the entity to soundboard everything. After all this is hub here because so I understand.
0:52:51.220 --> 0:52:58.780
Sara
Basically what has been done now is hearing our state stakeholders in this matter. So, I'm not sure how that same board can be included in this process.
0:53:10.620 --> 0:53:11.890
Breton, Mary B
Thanks. We'll look into that.
0:53:13.210 --> 0:53:25.320
Sara
If anything will help, I just happened to be from that school, so I'm not sure how helpful I can be in that regards, but the state agency themselves, you guys can connect yourself directly with the Michigan State organization anyways.
0:53:38.340 --> 0:53:46.460
Breton, Mary B
Thank you. And yes, if you have any more information on that that you'd like to add, you could send it always as an e-mail at mainepackagingEPR@maine.gov.
0:53:49.160 --> 0:53:50.240
Sara
I'll be happy to do that.
0:53:52.240 --> 0:53:52.690
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
0:53:56.980 --> 0:54:1.480
Breton, Mary B
Who's next? I go with Curtis, then Andy, OK?
0:54:5.250 --> 0:54:6.610
Curtis Picard (Guest)
Good afternoon. Can you hear me OK?
0:54:7.220 --> 0:54:8.90
Breton, Mary B
Curtis, yes.
0:54:8.430 --> 0:54:40.440
Curtis Picard (Guest)
There. All right. I'm Curtis Picard with the Retail Association of Maine. And I really appreciate both Sarah and Christine raising this issue of who's a consumer and the B2B packaging. I think my understanding as this law was being debated in the legislature and subsequently was that B2B packaging was not going to be included in this. And I'm a little concerned if the interpretation now is that it is going to be covered. It is going to be included for a number of reasons that have already been raised, one of which is a lot of retailers or you know consumer facing organizations already people stream.
0:54:50.30 --> 0:55:20.30
Curtis Picard (Guest)
Then additionally, who would be tracking this this material? Is that burden going to fall in the retailer, a lot of goods come into a business, you know in boxes and pallets with shrink wrap coming from a whole wide. You know the supply chain is incredibly complex. So I guess I just want to be on record that I'm a little concerned. I believe Sarah and Christine are kind of on the same page with me on this and certainly want.
0:55:20.120 --> 0:55:27.10
Curtis Picard (Guest)
To make sure this is fully explored, but I think I'm of the mindset the B2B packaging is not included in this law.
0:55:38.680 --> 0:55:45.270
Breton, Mary B
Yeah, this may be a subject we need to talk more about later, but Andy probably is talking about the same thing I imagined.
0:55:45.930 --> 0:55:56.280
Andy Hackman
Yeah, I don't. I don't mean to pile on. I'll just only reference and the only state that really explicitly defines B2B packaging in right now in their EPR laws. And there's four obviously.
0:55:57.280 --> 0:56:28.500
Andy Hackman
In Oregon, and they explicitly did that because they had data that showed that all of the commercial packaging was going into the same stream as the residential stream. They only, you know, process through 1 murph in Portland OR. And AMERIPEN had a number of dialogues with them to try to understand why they thought commercial packaging and B2B packaging would be included. I would would suggest if we are going to move into B2B packaging we would really hope that there's some data to back up that that's ending up in municipal waste streams and not being handled back of the shop, which is what our understanding is that there's existing contracts to handle that material and would echo during the legislative process. You know we had dialogues I think about this and it was one of the errors there was agreement that this was consumer facing, the stuff that I take home or gets shipped to me directly here in the state.
0:56:53.680 --> 0:56:54.530
Breton, Mary B
OK. Thank you.
0:56:58.850 --> 0:57:1.190
Breton, Mary B
Anyone else on that issue?
0:57:22.770 --> 0:57:35.780
Breton, Mary B
We received a couple of comments that speak to the reservations associated with establishing and maintaining an alternative collection program. So where we would like to direct the conversation now is up to the following question.
0:57:40.670 --> 0:57:50.950
Breton, Mary B
We'd like to ask the group how could administrative requirements be simplified or streamlined for entities with approved alternative collection programs?
0:58:1.90 --> 0:58:4.120
Breton, Mary B
I assume we're gonna hear from Annie, yeah.
0:58:5.970 --> 0:58:7.220
Breton, Mary B
Do you want Kelly first?
0:58:14.90 --> 0:58:45.370
Memphis, Kelly
Hi this this will be quick. I already shared that but since on this question was explicit again I think aligning the definition of producer with the definition of manufacturer and the drug stewardship take back program would help align the programs better. Again like I mentioned earlier, the definition of producer in the packaging law and the definition of manufacturer and the stewardship law are almost identical and that drug stewardship law does include the explicit exemption for wholesale pharmaceutical distributors. So I think mimicking that language in the packaging law would create clarity and create the programs to be better aligned.
0:58:54.940 --> 0:58:55.390
Memphis, Kelly
Thank you.
0:59:0.950 --> 0:59:3.960
Breton, Mary B
Mark's gonna have something on alternative collection programs too.
0:59:13.950 --> 0:59:15.420
Lane, Annie E
Would you like me to go next?
0:59:15.830 --> 0:59:16.610
Breton, Mary B
Yes, please.
0:59:17.10 --> 0:59:36.540
Lane, Annie E
OK. So again, I'm Annie Lane with a Worthington industries. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. So we spoke at the last meeting about our concerns with including pressurized cylinders as part of, you know, the broader packaging pro and collection system.
0:59:37.800 --> 1:0:4.690
Lane, Annie E
We recognize that there is an opportunity for alternative collection systems. However, because this product is collected separately and really actually has different features to how it's used in the market and disposed of, we are concerned about operating under that alternative collection system. Our primary concern is really the duplicative costs and effort, so.
1:0:5.670 --> 1:0:29.760
Lane, Annie E
Ideally, you know companies with products such as ours that benefit that would benefit from having their own program and not being collected with you know everyday packaging really. We'd really prefer not to pay into two separate systems there. This is a big burden, a new burden to the industry and there will certainly be duplicative costs and effort.
1:0:30.170 --> 1:1:1.820
Lane, Annie E
And even under the Alternative collections system, even with changes to the rules or the legislation. And so that's our primary concern. I think you know in my comments I also touched on the concern that these products do have different features. They're supplied into the market in different ways and they may have different disposal frequencies. So perhaps some of the equations that are applied in the legislation for packaging that becomes available for disposal right away won't really apply to this category of products.
1:1:1.960 --> 1:1:24.950
Lane, Annie E
We know, for instance, that people might buy a torch cylinder, use it with their torch over the case of several projects, which could be several years. So these equations won't necessarily apply, and that's why a separate program could be designed to be appropriate for the way that we know our consumers use these products.
1:1:35.840 --> 1:1:42.190
Breton, Mary B
If you were going to be required to use an alternative collection program, what would make it easier to do?
1:1:50.600 --> 1:2:0.390
Lane, Annie E
So I think Peter Hargreaves, our ERP policy consultant is on the line with me now and he may be best to help address that question.
1:2:1.820 --> 1:2:10.800
Lane, Annie E
We've actually been discussing this with Oregon around how we'd like to operate separately.
1:2:13.560 --> 1:2:14.930
Lane, Annie E
Peter, it's all yours.
1:2:20.20 --> 1:2:21.470
Peter (Guest)
Can you hear me now?
1:2:21.740 --> 1:2:22.210
Breton, Mary B
Yes.
1:2:23.120 --> 1:2:33.80
Peter (Guest)
So the issue right now in your regulation is section 6 of the regulation requires that any cylinders collected or sorry, the percentage of cylinders that aren't collected through the alternative system. You're required to pay through the common collection system, so you're essentially having to pay for two systems and stand up two systems.
1:2:49.300 --> 1:3:4.710
Peter (Guest)
The difference with cylinders, it's not like beverage containers. You're collecting these things absolutely separately, so you know where Worthington is moving forward with the program in Connecticut, that program is going to be collecting from municipal depots and other types of areas where those uh cylinders are brought back
1:3:5.450 --> 1:3:23.510
Peter (Guest). So again it's forcing a cost. It's forcing you to pay through two different systems. There's too much risk built into that system for the alternative collection system.
1:3:27.110 --> 1:3:33.720
Breton, Mary B
So I just want to make sure it's clear that the requirement is that you would pay for the cylinders that you don't collect.
1:3:34.350 --> 1:3:48.10
Breton, Mary B
So you'd only pay into this system for the cylinders that you don't collect through your alternative collection program and therefore are either still sitting in somebody's garage or going to a municipal collected solid waste program.
1:3:53.500 --> 1:4:4.680
Peter (Guest)
The law right now requires, uh, that the percentage that aren't collected through the alternative system, you have to contribute to the common collection system for.
1:4:7.890 --> 1:4:19.160
Peter (Guest)
Cylinders aren't captured in curbside programs so there wouldn't be any of those materials that are caught up, nor would you want those materials being collected in curbside programs.
1:4:20.50 --> 1:4:50.220
Peter (Guest)
Based on a Murph and also based on a collection truck, you don't want to collect them in those manners, so you're forcing those costs into the system. So unlike paint, as an example. So there's a separate program for paint. You require them to have a collection they have, let's say, an alternative collection system in place and they're just required to pay for those paint cans that are collected through that system. You're exempting them from the sort of common collection system.
1:4:53.110 --> 1:4:56.700
Peter (Guest)
But you're not doing the same for other materials like cylinders.
1:5:2.280 --> 1:5:8.770
Peter (Guest)
So essentially, you're having you're having cylinder help to subsidize the system that they're not using?
1:5:17.940 --> 1:5:18.240
Lane, Annie E
Correct.
1:5:13.710 --> 1:5:21.890
Breton, Mary B
I think Mark has something to say, then Sarah has something to say on this too. So we'll let's make Mark a presenter and then we'll hear from Sarah. 
1:5:21.470 --> 1:5:43.410
Lane, Annie E
And I would just close up like so you're disincentivizing because we're not just paying for what's not collected and what is collected, but we're also paying for the administrative costs. The overall cost of that program. It's Peter was saying of both programs. So if you want people to pursue their own alternative collection programs, it's very discouraging.
1:5:54.290 --> 1:5:55.660
Breton, Mary B
Yes, yes, Mark, go.
1:5:55.490 --> 1:6:23.220
Mark Hudson
OK. Hey, good afternoon, Mark Hudson, I'm with the ad container recycling council and I appreciate the opportunity to chime in here. We are the industry trade association for the agricultural chemicals industry and we manage a program that's already in place for the collection and stewardship of ag chemical containers to primary.
1:6:23.300 --> 1:6:53.210
Mark Hudson
The sort of pillars what we do. We are, again, a nationwide collection program where we collect empty, triple rinsed, cleaned containers in about 46 or 47 states. And then we also do research to identify potential end uses and then get those end uses and end user companies approved for the recycling of the plastic from our collection program. That's just a little backdrop.
1:6:53.310 --> 1:7:23.460
Mark Hudson
So you can understand the perspective that I'm coming from, actually, you know, we have a little bit of a question because I don't want to get into something that wasn't intended by you raising this question of alternative collection programs because I, as I recall, there was a different stakeholder meeting later in the summer. So it was there a specific aspect that I know you asked what would make it easier and I can address that question, but just maybe if you can also clarify for us the distinction between what you're wanting to discuss in this forum versus the later stakeholder call.
1:7:35.200 --> 1:7:53.110
Breton, Mary B
There’s going to be some overlap of some of the topics. So and this is kind of one of those areas that does overlap. Yeah, I just came up with a lot during the first meeting, but you're comments fit later on as well. We'll have some repeat.
1:7:53.470 --> 1:7:56.360
Mark Hudson
OK, very good. Well, then I just won't worry about it.
1:7:58.500 --> 1:8:26.470
Mark Hudson
So I think a couple of things. One, you know what we would certainly like to see is that Maine recognizes programs like the ACRC that are already in place. So we've been collecting nationwide for 30 years and have a pretty sophisticated well established program and that includes in the state of Maine, we've been collecting in Maine for probably 20 to 30 years. And so just sort of the recognition of that and it seems like from reading the bill that you know there will be a process to review programs like ours and we certainly would hope that we would be recognized as an alternative collection program if we're not. I can't imagine any other program that could be. So just my $0.02 worth and there's also statements in there and I can't remember and I apologize.
1:8:57.560 --> 1:9:9.710
Mark Hudson
I wasn't exactly ready for jumping into the alternative collection program discussion today, but I seem to recall that there's discussion in the bill about providing year round, Convenient, free and statewide collection opportunities for the types of packaging material to be collected under an alternative collection program. And I think what would make it easiest or important for us is that if you think about the nature of the products that we collect, they are agricultural products and oftentimes there's not the same utilization of those products in let's say urban environments as you would find in rural environments.
1:9:39.800 --> 1:9:56.120
Mark Hudson
I just would want to make sure that there is proper consideration to the distinction between where types of packaging are most commonly used and where it's practical and realistic for us to have perfect regional penetration in terms of collection and let's say you know the downtown area of you know, various cities in Maine as opposed to in the heavy agricultural areas may not be practical or realistic. And so just considering that we make sure that the that language is at least for programs like ours where you know we can continue to collect in areas where it really makes sense.
1:10:28.90 --> 1:10:32.210
Mark Hudson
Umm so that that would be the one comment I would make.
1:10:33.230 --> 1:10:36.760
Mark Hudson
If I can, while I'm discussing this, I would just like to say that, again, we represent 56 member companies also on the line right now is Riley Titus, who's represents crop life America. We've also had, I think in the previous session, Karen Reardon from responsible industry for a sound environment or RISE.
1:11:1.200 --> 1:11:14.530
Mark Hudson
Our Members would recommend that the packaging materials used to contain products that are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, otherwise known as FIFRA, that those products would be exempted.
1:11:18.820 --> 1:11:24.10
Mark Hudson
And you guys earlier asked us to provide a why for that.
1:11:25.510 --> 1:11:36.440
Mark Hudson
I think our rationale is that the our goal is for the packaging materials that are used for those FIFRA products fit for regulated products.
1:11:37.190 --> 1:11:55.150
Mark Hudson
That they not be managed or physically handled or processed or segregated, recycled, or even regulated in the same manner or with the same considerations as recycling streams for other non-regulated products.
1:11:56.760 --> 1:12:25.940
Mark Hudson
You know some examples of that, the CRC program, as I've already mentioned. UM, again, which we would hope to be an alternative collection program collects chemical containers specifically and does research to make sure that we identify and approve end uses and end users that we deem appropriate for the plastic that we collect. And our goal as an industry is for that to continue and for those products to not end up going into streams that we or members may not feel comfortable with.
1:12:29.630 --> 1:12:54.650
Mark Hudson
I can also just say, as a matter of point, you may already be aware of this, that there is already precedent for this fix for exemption being included in other APR bills across the country, specifically in California and SB54 in Colorado and HB 1355 and in New Jersey's recycled content bill.
1:12:55.710 --> 1:13:3.190
Mark Hudson
So I'll just stop there and I think the one other the other question that I would have for you guys I related to a producer exemption and an alternative collection program. If a producer exemption is granted for a product category, for example like FIFRA products that I just mentioned.
1:13:17.940 --> 1:13:35.450
Mark Hudson
Would that have any bearing on that category being allowed to be included as part of an alternative collection program? Or vice versa, would an alternative collection program in some way be not considered if it's already classified as a producer exemption?
1:13:43.730 --> 1:13:45.620
Breton, Mary B
So if a producer is exempt, they would not need the alternative collection program.
1:13:52.440 --> 1:13:58.10
Breton, Mary B
For producers who are exempt from this law then there would be no need for ACRC to be recognized as an alternative group collection program for those products.
1:14:12.290 --> 1:14:13.430
Mark Hudson
Right. OK.
1:14:14.630 --> 1:14:39.930
Mark Hudson
And just to be clear, our program, the ACRC program covers much more than just FIFRA products. So we would have kind of both categories. We would have some of our members products that would be exempted potentially by a FIFRA exemption, but we also have many products that are deemed as non-regulated and would not fall under such an exemption.
1:14:49.20 --> 1:14:51.260
Mark Hudson
I think that's all I had, Elena and team.
1:14:52.400 --> 1:14:53.680
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
1:15:0.350 --> 1:15:2.600
Breton, Mary B
Hey, it's Sarah. 
1:15:3.410 --> 1:15:5.890
Breton, Mary B
She's already presenting, right? 
1:15:12.770 --> 1:15:13.630
Sarah Nichols
Great. Alright. Hi.
1:15:15.230 --> 1:15:18.20
Sarah Nichols
So I guess I'm going to go back. I had a comment about the alternative collection program question in regards to the propane tanks, but I also now I have a new comment about the FIFRA exemption too.
1:15:29.320 --> 1:15:39.530
Sarah Nichols
For the alternative collection programs, I understand how it might be burdensome or perceivably burdensome or costly to pay for two systems. But, just in the case of propane, this is a theoretical system we're talking about. Doesn't already exist now as an alternative. So it seems a little bit premature to talk about that until there's an established program where things are getting collected through an alternative method. But when these materials unfortunately do end up in our municipal waste stream and cause damage and it's actually kind of expensive for other people to deal with these, when they end up in the wrong place and if there were an alternative collection program, there would likely be a lot of education to prevent that from happening. And that would be great.
1:16:17.660 --> 1:16:18.730
Sarah Nichols
I think that until an alternative collection program can prove that it's really successful up to a certain standard say like 90% collection or something like that that they should indeed have to pay for the other system because that material is ending up somewhere and someone is paying for it. So if it's not the producer of that material. Then I don't believe that's an equitable way to pay for that that material so.
1:16:44.810 --> 1:16:57.320
Sarah Nichols
You know, I I think in the case of paint, they show that they have a pretty good collection rate and it's not causing a lot of problems necessarily for municipalities to end up with whatever is left. So I think that that's a comfortable exemption.
1:16:57.720 --> 1:16:59.410
Sarah Nichols
So my two cents on that and then the FIFRA exemption idea.
1:17:9.90 --> 1:17:17.590
Sarah Nichols
Similar so those materials are still ending up in our waste stream and still having to be paid for by somebody. So being exempted from the fees just leaves the fees on the backs of somebody else who may or may not have anything to do with that packaging. And in Maine that would be the property tax payer.
1:17:26.770 --> 1:17:40.750
Sarah Nichols
Unless those materials are managed by a separate system and they're just kind of kept and managed best in a different way, which they might very well might be considering their contents. But until that time comes, I believe that they should not be exempted.
1:17:42.40 --> 1:17:42.530
Sarah Nichols
Thank you.
1:17:45.490 --> 1:17:50.60
Breton, Mary B
Thank you, Sarah. Did Peter and Mark have something else to say there?
1:17:51.450 --> 1:18:13.160
Mark Hudson
Well, I'll just quickly respond to Sarah's comment in and maybe I wasn't clear earlier, but you know the our program is, is currently collecting and paying for the collection of those products. And our goal would be for that to continue as an alternative collection program.
1:18:37.10 --> 1:18:46.900
Peter (Guest)
Worthington is comfortable with producer responsibility requirements and the problem is the regulation right now forces it into a system that is not.
1:18:49.530 --> 1:19:0.760
Peter (Guest)
Similar to what you would have in place to capture uh gas cylinders. So the way that the law is set up doesn't allow for innovation in capture, it just forces you into a system with a whole bunch of producers that are not generally similar to other products that are being taken. So the precedent in Canada is really that these products are managed separately. Household hazardous waste is generally legislated separately because of its different characteristics because it has different collection requirements and the concerns in Ontario have certainly been because the program was managed for some time under a single heading with packaging, and the issue certainly was that those that were involved with the management of those household hazardous products had difficulty having their voice heard within a large organization where the majority of members have nothing to do with their product.
1:19:55.270 --> 1:19:56.460
Peter (Guest)
Hopefully that helps.
1:19:57.540 --> 1:19:58.130
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
1:20:0.700 --> 1:20:5.250
Breton, Mary B
Riley's been waiting a long time.
1:20:22.970 --> 1:20:26.580
Riley Titus
Yeah. Good afternoon, Riley Titus. With Crop Life America.
1:20:27.650 --> 1:20:32.240
Riley Titus
Appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this issue.
1:20:32.990 --> 1:20:59.70
Riley Titus
And for hosting these stakeholder meetings. I just wanted to echo what Mark Hudson had shared. Our industry has had a stewardship program of some form now as Mark mentioned for a few decades now in Maine. And I think you know in the discussion of alternative collection programs. We would be interested in continuing that program. I was not able to be on the 1st stakeholder meeting.
1:21:10.280 --> 1:21:16.210
Riley Titus
And if I heard correctly, maybe at the onset of this meeting, this is just kind of 1 stakeholder meeting as a part of many over the next few months here, so I did have one question as it relates to process. Is there going to be information updated I guess on the site?
1:21:35.200 --> 1:21:50.30
Riley Titus
About when to submit any comments or requests for extension or recognition of an alternative collection program. You know how we go about pursuing that process?
1:21:56.750 --> 1:22:0.420
Breton, Mary B
So to answer your question, a lot of the details that are surrounding alternative collection programs are to be determined in rulemaking, so we anticipate that the topic of producer payments and alternative collection programs and their functionality to be discussed more in July of 2023.
1:22:33.780 --> 1:22:46.830
Breton, Mary B
So to answer your question about how to go about applying for one that all those specifics are still to be determined in rule, and so we strongly encourage your participation during that time to help us capture your perspective and your ideas, and then the second question you're asking about an update on the website. Ohh I think it was around comments, you can send comments at any time.
1:23:16.450 --> 1:23:21.630
Breton, Mary B
An e-mail address that is linked on the website so. Reach out to our website for all resources, one of them being the e-mail address that is accepting all comments at any time.
1:23:35.210 --> 1:23:51.770
Breton, Mary B
This is an on that website is the schedule for all the meetings and everything, and then additionally, as we have these meetings and prepare for meetings, we'll be sending out more. We'll be sending out information and like, for example, the municipal reimbursements scheduled to be the topic for meetings in January.
1:23:52.520 --> 1:24:20.190
Breton, Mary B
And then the same thing with the ones in February and such. So on the website too is the links to every comment people submit to us. Comments are updated quickly as possible on our site so that people can see what others are providing.
1:24:21.150 --> 1:24:25.180
Riley Titus
I see. Appreciate it. Just two other quick points and I think.
1:24:26.300 --> 1:24:50.20
Riley Titus
If I'm recalling correctly, Kelly had maybe raised this, but similar to maybe pharmaceuticals we may have an obsolete pesticide collection program also in the state. So just something to be aware of and recognize as a part of this whole discussion and law and rule making process and then…
1:24:51.360 --> 1:25:21.240
Riley Titus
I think it was maybe Andy who mentioned it pretty early on in this discussion, but also you know our products are unique in terms of their classification and what's included within the product. So I think it's important to recognize that I think there'll be further examination around any potential packaging that may be considered hazardous. So yeah, appreciate the opportunity and look forward to remaining engaged and also a resource if any questions come up.
1:25:21.770 --> 1:25:23.380
Riley Titus
You know Mark Hudson as he mentioned can answer those. Thank you.
1:25:28.290 --> 1:25:30.820
Breton, Mary B
Thank you. I'll go to the floor.
1:25:32.600 --> 1:25:35.890
Breton, Mary B
Hi, my name is Zoe. I'm from Allagash Brewing Company.
1:25:37.50 --> 1:26:8.330
Breton, Mary B
Thank you so much for having us here. It's really interesting hearing everyone's comments. So on the topic of the alternative collection program, I just have kind of questions for you. So Allagash for the past two years, we've also had a stewardship program, we call it the recycling coop where we take back packaging from guests through our brewery tasting room. But we have also opened up that to other businesses in the Community, other breweries.
1:26:8.410 --> 1:26:16.590
Breton, Mary B
They're also bringing in materials, other non breweries, that just businesses are bringing in, items that we are then holding in our warehouse, collecting, bailing, and then getting recycled properly and a lot of these are hard to recycle. Items such as plastic pack text for carriers which are not recycle item for consumers. 
1:26:37.20 --> 1:26:45.30
Breton, Mary B
My question is, in the verbiage is a group of producers or individual producer for the alternative collection program. 
1:26:45.930 --> 1:27:10.230
Breton, Mary B
Where we are taking back items through our tasting room, not guaranteed that they were actually our packaging. So it's any kind of pack tech, doesn't matter, from the brewery or beverage business. So I'm curious how that kind of plays into this where we're getting these just using the pack tech example because it's a nice example. 
1:27:10.890 --> 1:27:34.860
Breton, Mary B
We're getting the materials in from customers returning them to the brewery or getting them in from other bottle shops and breweries from consumers, and then we're then taking care of them. So I guess I'm curious if there's some way to kind of offset that since we're taking in a large amount of packets that are actually not from our facility that we did not put on our package.
1:27:37.490 --> 1:27:38.390
Breton, Mary B
That makes sense.
1:27:40.60 --> 1:27:49.920
Breton, Mary B
The alternative collection programs are material type specific. If it were the same material type, it could offset a material type that you had.
1:27:51.60 --> 1:27:54.40
Breton, Mary B
You're gonna have the same issue that Mark does though. And I I'd have to look at the language about statewide, but that would be a potential issue with the convenience requirement.
1:28:13.310 --> 1:28:33.180
Breton, Mary B
So an alternative program having to have as part of its requirements is that it would serve the state and meet some kind of convenience factor for people. And that will be discussed and later meetings or has already been determined. 
1:28:34.730 --> 1:28:36.960
Breton, Mary B
Great. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
1:28:49.880 --> 1:28:51.560
Breton, Mary B
So going to Matt.
1:29:0.240 --> 1:29:14.940
Matt Grondin
Thank you for convening these meetings and for the opportunity to say my piece here. Matt Grondin from EcoMaine in Portland, ME Recycling and Waste management manager.
1:29:15.810 --> 1:29:22.250
Matt Grondin
Umm. And my comment is, uh, mostly to follow up on Sarah Nichols comment earlier about propane tanks or whatever the case might be.
1:29:27.770 --> 1:29:35.400
Matt Grondin
There are programs for materials out there like batteries or like paint or like mercury containing bulbs or thermostats and those programs are, you know, at varying levels of success. However, the real fact remains that EcoMaine and other waste managers end up with these items regardless of whether there is a stewardship program.
1:29:54.730 --> 1:30:12.780
Matt Grondin
And so, you know, I guess my comment is not to lose sight of the reality of waste management and the theory of waste management and keeping those separate because you know, every day, literally every day we are seeing gas cylinders, we're seeing batteries that should not be in the waste stream. So that that is the reality of the situation. 
1:30:23.240 --> 1:30:47.530
Matt Grondin
Whether or not it is the practice that ought to be so, inevitably, I guess with the funds, whatever the funds are collected from this from this program, I guess this is probably for a later conversation. You know, really I would advocate for, for greater education and outreach associated with those collection programs so that we can.
1:30:48.260 --> 1:30:54.350
Matt Grondin
You know, kind of move reality a little closer to the theory of the thing. Thank you.
1:30:57.420 --> 1:30:58.870
Breton, Mary B
I think Mark was first and then we'll yeah, Peter talked.
1:31:6.940 --> 1:31:15.400
Mark Hudson
I don't know if Peter, if your comment wasn't follow up to Matt's comment, feel free to go ahead of me. Mine is not related to his comment.
1:31:15.900 --> 1:31:42.450
Peter (Guest)
Yeah. Just really quick, I think the plan would be that an alternative system would collect from a municipal depots, it would collect from municipal facilities like disposal facilities or transfer facilities or immerse where these materials were being collected. So the question and the problem is if that system is in place and it's collecting materials from all of those sources potentially also collecting from parks and otherwise. Why is there a need for it to pay into a stewardship fund? On top of that, to pay for for that collection system?
1:31:50.860 --> 1:32:9.280
Peter (Guest)
And just briefly, uh 90%, the 90% target I think that was mentioned that is pretty steep. I'm not aware of any program on the household hazardous waste side that's achieving a 90% diversion rate. That's a pretty steep hill to climb in order to meet.
1:32:17.560 --> 1:32:28.90
Peter (Guest)
And that's partially because as you know, cylinders are kept in houses, they're kept in garages, they don't necessarily flow in a regular in a regular format.
1:32:29.330 --> 1:32:29.670
Peter (Guest)
Thanks.
1:32:30.820 --> 1:32:31.290
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
1:32:43.330 --> 1:32:44.130
Breton, Mary B
You're up, Mark.
1:32:46.40 --> 1:33:1.230
Mark Hudson
OK. Thank you. I just wanted to add one more item on, you know, back to your question of what would make alternative collection programs easier. One of the things that I'm not completely clear on from the bill is whether I want to say that you were product stewardship organization has to be a 501C3.
1:33:12.240 --> 1:33:13.450
Mark Hudson
And, not clear whether an alternative collection program has similar requirements or not, but would certainly ask that an alternative collection program could be any entity of 501C3 or a 501C6 as we are.
1:33:33.930 --> 1:33:47.970
Mark Hudson
For what it's worth, I will say and Elena I know you and I have spoken in the past and this would be an update. We are as an industry looking at possibly creating A501C3 to be a pro in states where states allow industry or multiple pros or industry specific pros.
1:33:57.290 --> 1:34:20.320
Mark Hudson
But in the case of an alternative collection program, I think our ASK would be that it could be either one that you know the ACRC could act as that alternative collection program as a 501C6, or if we happen to go ahead with setting up a 501C3 that we could use that entity as well. So just that flexibility is it would be our ask.
1:34:22.160 --> 1:34:22.600
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
1:34:26.720 --> 1:34:27.690
Breton, Mary B
So go to Chris.
1:34:32.170 --> 1:35:2.610
Chris Piché
Thank you everyone. I just want to get back to Peter’s comments. I think our feel is more an issue bc there's more than materials and containers and I think for containers we can collect from place to place in commercial. I just want to make a distinction of that. And regarding Mark for the pros or the collection, I think it's a fair question to ask of RPM will say that we bid be better maybe for the clarification and that's privacy of everything to be on one side or the other.
1:35:2.690 --> 1:35:32.160
Chris Piché
The state of Maine itself it is, they estimated to generate more than 1 million pounds of contamination plastic each year with an increase of three to 5% each year. And like mentioned to, like other colleagues mentioned, we do believe that a single stream for those type of plastic. In order to ease the collection and recycling, avoiding contamination on the other plastic is the way to do it.
1:35:39.590 --> 1:36:9.940
Chris Piché
This is my comment for now and also I think Peter you mentioned 90%, yeah this is pretty steep. I don't know where it's coming from. Canada appear program success rate for those kind of containers achieving some province more than 70% and we've been doing so also for more than 25 years Coast to coast and we just drop a couple of comments and the documents to Jessica. So feel free to reach to us if you want to engage conversation and would be more than happy to do so. Thank you everyone.
1:36:18.690 --> 1:36:19.290
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
1:36:39.720 --> 1:36:44.670
Breton, Mary B
To keep the discussion going, I'm going to go ahead and sound off the next point of clarification. So fee schedules do require us to stretch the discussion a little bit out of context, since that topic is scheduled to be addressed in July. Again, it's another instance where there's overlap, so we've received a couple of comments that speak to adjusting fees as an alternative to providing exemptions. With that being said, the department would like to ask the group, are there any specific ideas on how fee schedules can consider federal requirements?
1:37:22.660 --> 1:37:30.730
Breton, Mary B
Also, what federal requirements could merit a beneficial compromise when it comes to the fee structure?
1:37:45.270 --> 1:37:46.610
Mark Hudson
Can you repeat that one more time?
1:37:47.170 --> 1:37:47.840
Breton, Mary B
Yes.
1:37:51.490 --> 1:37:56.870
Breton, Mary B
So we just had a few comments speaking to adjusting fees as opposed to offering up a blanket exemption, so we we're interested in knowing are there any specific ideas that any of you have as to how the fee structure can consider federal requirements and what federal requirements could merit a beneficial compromise when it comes to the fee structure.
1:38:37.800 --> 1:38:45.490
Andy Hackman
OK, so I've got maybe a question first with regard to fees, I didn't see the fee structure as a specific. 
Element within the timeline for the issues that we're talking about and maybe I missed it, but you know next is municipal reimbursement and then recyclability and access. And obviously there's a specific requirement that there be a fees rule that's set. So I'd be interested in understanding how in general the department's going to approach the fee make or the fee setting rulemaking so that we can understand that. And then as it relates to the federal requirements, you know, this is going to be a first, right?
1:39:16.560 --> 1:39:48.50
Andy Hackman
The pros have not been formed for any of the other states either. So all the other states allowed the pro to set fees themselves and create the discount structure and propose that too the department for approval. I don't know. You know, obviously you guys are going to be contracting under the law directly with the PRO. I don't know who the potential PRO would be, but they're going to be doing this for three other States and submitting a plan so I'm seeking that and put somebody that's, you know, done that or is in the process of doing that for the three other states, might be a good place to start.
1:39:48.170 --> 1:40:9.760
Andy Hackman
But I don't know how that lines up with your time frame and it would appreciate clarity on when we're going to talk about the fee structure itself and the rubric that you guys are going to look at for the rulemaking.
1:40:13.670 --> 1:40:17.0
Breton, Mary B
July during producer payments.
1:40:17.930 --> 1:40:18.300
Andy Hackman
OK.
1:40:19.40 --> 1:40:20.150
Andy Hackman
Alright, that's helpful.
1:40:32.670 --> 1:40:33.560
Breton, Mary B
How about Sarah Nichols.
1:40:46.250 --> 1:40:49.480
Sarah Nichols
Am I ready to speak? Are you ready for teams to speak rather?
1:40:51.700 --> 1:40:52.370
Breton, Mary B
Yes, yes.
1:40:51.400 --> 1:40:58.560
Sarah Nichols
It's odd not seeing them. OK. Thank you. Sorry about that. So, yeah. Sarah Nichols again from NRCM Sorry. I have a comment about everything today.
1:40:59.740 --> 1:41:7.50
Sarah Nichols
But I happen to be one of the commenters who brought up the fee based alternative to an exemption. 
1:41:8.610 --> 1:41:21.270
Sarah Nichols
Since the federally regulated products were supposed to be considered on, you know, whether or not it was able to be recycled or more on that, that the design qualities of those materials, I don't remember the exact wording.
1:41:21.800 --> 1:41:51.600
Sarah Nichols
So anybody making a case for having an exemption of a federally regulated product under that assumption would have to say, alright, I can't possibly reduce my packaging because of these federal regulations or I have to have this extra something on it because of federal regulations or has to be this big because I have to have a certain label or whatever it may be. So you know and I do think that's a compelling case.
1:41:51.710 --> 1:42:6.840
Sarah Nichols
They would potentially use a smaller or different type of packaging, but they'll be feeling like they're being prevented from doing so, so I can see how that would feel unfair. And in that case, maybe the fee structure could, for instance charge based on the amount of extra packaging they believe they're required to use because of the law or and then that's they can reduce that from their payment or whatever it is. Maybe they need a little seal on the top of the bottle for some reason. Maybe the fee for that part could be exempted or something like that. If there's something there additional that they wouldn't have otherwise put there in without the regulations then then that part I feel like could be subject for reduced fees, just as an idea as an example.
1:42:43.380 --> 1:43:3.530
Sarah Nichols
Because one of the difficulties of just blanket exempting these things is, I'm sounding like a broken record, these things are still in the municipal waste stream is still being paid for by somebody else. So I don't think that that's fair, but we also lose the ability to collect data on that material. You know that's not showing up in the total material sold in Maine. It makes it really difficult to calculate the total performance of the program. If we're kind of missing a lot of key information, like how much material is being sold into the state.
1:43:14.200 --> 1:43:15.390
Sarah Nichols
That's my two cents. Thank you.
1:43:37.370 --> 1:43:52.660
Breton, Mary B
That's all we have on that. I think we'll move on. Yeah. The last point here is just thoughts on perishable food. We're looking for suggestions on how perishable food can be further clarified or described.
1:44:16.470 --> 1:44:17.80
Breton, Mary B
That's a lot.
1:44:14.50 --> 1:44:37.900
Andy Hackman
So I did some extensive research on this trying to submit something for comments and as you saw in my comments, there's not a real consistent definition, USDA only defines perishable when it comes to meat and poultry and the perishable food language that's used in the statute is broader, includes bakery goods, fruit and vegetables.
1:44:37.950 --> 1:45:8.800
Andy Hackman
So I would just say we, we are completely struggling with how to define that. I think for that extent for that exemption, the 15 tons is really the operative language in the in the Statute now at this point given the lack of clarity and what is perishable and what is not perishable, other clarity that we were able to do in looking at the exemption is if it's frozen food unless it's wild blueberries, it would not be considered perishable.
1:45:9.710 --> 1:45:39.340
Andy Hackman
So I think we get that. So everything that's frozen but do you know, the point about ice cream, you know that's the only state that can be in. So and I think we all would agree that that ice cream on a counter is pretty perishable and when it's not in the refrigerator, it's not in the freezer, it's a perishable item pretty quickly on a summer day. So I wish I had you know better information to give you.
1:45:43.300 --> 1:46:9.320
Andy Hackman
I put in in our comments. Like I said, the USDA language and guidance around meat and poultry, but that's only again for that sector. And I don't think that's necessarily exclusive either because we have seen packaging, extend shelf life or food items that may or may not need to be immediately in packaging for weeks, months to two years. So I think it is something you're going to have to think about.
1:46:9.980 --> 1:46:42.710
Andy Hackman
You know, not just the immediacy of packaging for that item, but also where packaging significantly extends the shelf life reduces greenhouse gas emissions from food waste ending up in the landfill. Those things need to be considered on whether or not that item is perishable or not. So in going through that analysis with our Members, nobody could say here is a clear bright line on that. So it's sort of to us fell down to the lowest common denominator in that exemption language which is the 15 tons portion of that exemption.
1:46:43.170 --> 1:47:9.600
Andy Hackman 
Given the fact that you have both criteria, you have to be perishable and you have to be below the 15 tons. So basically if you're in the food category, that 15 ton language is the important part of the exemption from what we can tell at this point in time. So what we're going to keep looking to see if there's a better definition, perhaps we haven't looked internationally at this point to see if there's a good definition out there internationally, but the best we could come up with at this point.
1:47:16.470 --> 1:47:25.940
Breton, Mary B
And did you have any information on what that 15 tons looks like in terms of like how many, some of those classic packages, how many of those packages is 15 tons?
1:47:27.820 --> 1:47:57.810
Andy Hackman
I don't. I can ask our Members. I mean, obviously the things that are heavier, right, like a bottle of milk that might be reusable. I don't know, depending upon the system that you're using is going to be a lot heavier than a cardboard container and plastic versus cardboard is also a different weight. So we'd have to probably get materials specific to try to give examples of what would be that 15 tons. I'll ask our folks and see, you know, I'm certainly aware of 1 one party that did the calculation during the legislative process and understood exactly where to draw that line, so there could be some.
1:48:6.480 --> 1:48:23.290
Andy Hackman
Perhaps perspective there from those that were involved in drafting that legislative language. I'll ask our folks and see, but nobody was able to specifically say 15 tons would equal 500 cereal boxes. You know, that type of thing. But I'll see what we can get.
1:48:27.630 --> 1:48:33.240
Andy Hackman
I don't have specific data on what equals 15 tons, I will. I will look for it.
1:48:34.420 --> 1:48:44.110
Andy Hackman
But not naming names relative to who might have informed the 15 tons language. I mean, folks can go back to the legislative record and probably get some understanding of that.
1:48:45.250 --> 1:48:45.970
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
1:49:0.740 --> 1:49:2.360
Kozyckyj, Roxy
Hi, could you guys hear me?
1:49:3.210 --> 1:49:4.190
Breton, Mary B
Yes, yes.
1:49:4.90 --> 1:49:4.760
Kozyckyj, Roxy
OK, great.
1:49:6.200 --> 1:49:24.640
Kozyckyj, Roxy
My name is Roxy. I'm the director for state government affairs at Advamed, where the National Trade Association for medical devices and medical technology. I have submitted our comments already, but I kind of I didn't jump in quick enough before we hit the last point and I wanted to respond to the fee structure comments that were made about federally regulated products and how to kind of still count them but manipulate and look at the details of the packaging to see if there's something that could still be extra. I think it was Sarah's comment.
1:49:47.850 --> 1:49:52.520
Kozyckyj, Roxy
You know that may work for certain categories of federally regulated products, but for medical devices in particular, oftentimes our primary packaging, you know, I'm not talking about secondary or tertiary, that can come from a different supply chain entity down the line. But our primary packaging for medical devices often goes to the integrity of the product and is oftentimes part of the product design, so it's not so much the thinking of there's extra being used or there's a part of the packaging that's unnecessary and that's just being added because it's being better federally regulated. It's more the entire product is considered with that primary packaging. For example, syringes have to be packaged and transported a certain way. 
1:50:41.970 --> 1:50:47.730
Kozyckyj, Roxy
Contact lenses are a medical device and those packaged our you know, that's a specific kind of packaging that's not extra or created with kind of ancillary or otherwise unnecessary components.
1:50:56.470 --> 1:51:21.520
Kozyckyj, Roxy
Umm, you know, those are just a few examples. I can obviously provide some more if that's necessary, but I wanted to just kind of point out that it for certain federally regulated, in particular healthcare, medical devices by the regulated by the FDA that it's not so easily discernible in that sense. And oftentimes the most times the packaging is just as scrutinized and regulated as the product itself, and sometimes is considered one in the same.
1:51:30.870 --> 1:51:40.640
Kozyckyj, Roxy
And if something were to change oftentimes, then you have to get it reapproved again. If it's significant enough. So I just wanted to point that out.
1:51:44.650 --> 1:51:47.240
Breton, Mary B
So Roxy before you go, would you mind if I ask you a question?
1:51:50.870 --> 1:51:59.290
Breton, Mary B
I'm trying to look back at this background document really quick here, but my recollection is that medical devices is a really big category of devices.
1:52:0.730 --> 1:52:4.460
Breton, Mary B
And I'm wondering if there is sort of subset of some of those things being things that I would definitely not consider to have really strict or necessary packaging. I mean, all packaging has is there to protect the product in one way or another. You know is there a subset that you can come up with that is for? Which those requirements are particularly compelling?
1:52:38.380 --> 1:53:0.750
Kozyckyj, Roxy
Uh, certainly. I think that there's, like you said, depending on the type of product, if it's you know a hip replacement joint or a toothbrush, there's a difference. And so I can certainly provide some more background and additional information on how to kind of divide those out and send those to the department for sure.
1:53:1.630 --> 1:53:11.80
Breton, Mary B
I guess the other thing that would be helpful is like so a hip replacement joint. I would not consider that that's packaging that's going home with the consumer.
1:53:12.360 --> 1:53:27.0
Breton, Mary B
And I know that, you know, we already talked about how distribution packaging is a little bit foggy in this whole thing, but that's another issue around medical devices that it seems like some of those.
1:53:31.630 --> 1:53:37.460
Breton, Mary B
I'm not clear to which their packaging is is covered by the law or not.
1:53:40.20 --> 1:53:45.100
Kozyckyj, Roxy
Like where, where the federal regulation stop and where they start in terms of the packaging?
1:53:47.530 --> 1:53:49.70
Breton, Mary B
No, rather in terms of like there's the packaging that go with the consumer.
1:53:53.550 --> 1:53:57.330
Kozyckyj, Roxy
Oh, I see. If it's like you're just in a health care setting, or if it's just at home.
1:54:1.530 --> 1:54:1.950
Kozyckyj, Roxy
Sure.
1:53:53.210 --> 1:54:11.880
Breton, Mary B
And I guess that's probably gets back to right, you know and to what extent is that stuff, like the hip replacement joint, the same stuff that has the most requirements around its packaging, and maybe correspond to the stuff that's not necessarily going home with the consumer. I know that that's dependent on upon distribution and consumer.
1:54:22.930 --> 1:54:32.970
Kozyckyj, Roxy
Yeah, there are differences in that too. And I can, I can try and dig in and provide some more color on that. But even with home-based settings, you know that could be again a toothbrush or it could be insulin pumps or anything related to care for that. So you know, even though those are both used at home by a consumer, those two products are require very different packaging to maintain the integrity of the product because of its packaging. So, but I can certainly try to provide some more detail on those categories and what kind of a better way to think about medical devices than that way and send that to the department.
1:55:7.490 --> 1:55:8.580
Breton, Mary B
That would be really helpful.
1:55:13.860 --> 1:55:14.330
Breton, Mary B
Thomas.
1:55:15.810 --> 1:55:16.850
Thomas Pizzuto
Hello, can you hear me?
1:55:17.260 --> 1:55:17.670
Breton, Mary B
Yes.
1:55:18.170 --> 1:55:48.220
Thomas Pizzuto
Thank you. Thank you for taking my comment. I was just seeking a, I guess, a point of clarification relative to the law and kind of a related comment that we just heard from animated about Med devices was presented during the first call or first meeting from the I think it was the Animal Institute of Health around the regulation, the qualification and validation of packaging etcetera and product integrity. But relative to main, we're actually talking about.
1:55:48.290 --> 1:56:4.950
Thomas Pizzuto
Packaging that no longer has product in it. It's spent packaging. So in a case of a hip, whatever it was packaged in, that's on the surgical that's lying on the surgical floor and the surgical suite to be cleaned up after the hip has been installed. So I didn't quite understand reference to product integrity. Once the product has been removed from the packaging, the packaging has served its purpose and Maine’s law I thought was talking about, you know, in effect post dispense, post consumer or packaging that's been used to fit its purpose. And then whatever it was protecting is no longer there. And that's what's being recycled. So it was just the only comment.
1:56:34.810 --> 1:56:35.860
Breton, Mary B
Yes, thank you.
1:56:53.730 --> 1:56:57.380
Breton, Mary B
I think we can agree that there are many products that require packaging that have yet to be dealt with. So that's the line we're trying to draw, I guess.
1:57:7.370 --> 1:57:12.550
Breton, Mary B
Does anybody else have any comments on this or on a different issue that we haven't brought up?
1:57:25.870 --> 1:57:45.840
Mark Hudson
Elena, it's not really an important topic, but just a question about from a process standpoint. Just to be clear, you were asking for stakeholder input today. Am I clear that we can continue to submit input on the topics covered today into the future? And, is there a deadline for what we could submit something in writing?
1:57:53.50 --> 1:57:59.180
Breton, Mary B
Our draft rule is due to the Board of Environmental Protection in December 2023.
1:58:5.870 --> 1:58:6.980
Breton, Mary B
You have a year.
1:58:7.950 --> 1:58:8.380
Mark Hudson
OK.
1:58:7.850 --> 1:58:10.390
Breton, Mary B
They need to be sent to MainePackagingEPR@maine.gov.
1:58:11.430 --> 1:58:13.480
Mark Hudson
Very good. Thank you. You answered my question.
1:58:22.550 --> 1:58:26.440
Breton, Mary B
Yeah. We just opened up the floor for general questions and comments specific to the topic we've been discussing.
1:59:10.520 --> 1:59:13.310
Breton, Mary B
So I’ll thank everyone for attending.
1:59:15.170 --> 1:59:16.80
Breton, Mary B
This was the second meeting of the exemptions topic, and so again the next one is January 10th.
1:59:30.20 --> 1:59:31.350
Breton, Mary B
Same location.
1:59:32.570 --> 1:59:39.800
Breton, Mary B
Municipal reimbursements is a topic we're hoping to have our background document out like in the next day.
1:59:44.300 --> 1:59:53.50
Breton, Mary B
And I guess I'll just again thank everyone for their time and participating in the stakeholder process. We really appreciate it. I think today's been a very useful day and we had some great conversations about this specific topic.
2:0:5.850 --> 2:0:9.620
Breton, Mary B
Thank you. Bye everyone. Happy Holidays.
2:0:14.130 --> 2:0:15.40
Mark Hudson
Merry Christmas all.