0:0:7.970 --> 0:0:8.910
Breton, Mary B
Hi everyone.
0:0:12.30 --> 0:0:15.730
Breton, Mary B
I want to thank you for attending the third of the department's stakeholder meetings for the Extended Producer Responsibility program for packaging. I am Brian Beneski, the head of the Department Sustainability Unit. I will be handling technical issues of the meeting along with Mary Breton, who is with our Commissioner's Office.
0:0:34.630 --> 0:0:37.700
Breton, Mary B
I'd also like to introduce Elena Bertocci. Raise your hand. And, Jessica Nadeau. They are in the Sustainability Unit and they will also be acting as the moderators for this meeting.
0:0:51.640 --> 0:1:9.60
Breton, Mary B
This is our third meeting in our series of stakeholder meetings. There may still be some technical bumps that arise, so I ask for everyone's patience if or when those happen. Just a reminder for those here in person, the mics are in the ceilings, and they're very sensitive.
0:1:13.230 --> 0:1:34.470
Breton, Mary B
We will make sure that everyone who wishes to make a statement or ask a question will get a chance to do so. I would also like to add that this meeting is being recorded and that the recording should be available within the next week or so. 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.
0:1:36.100 --> 0:1:42.930
Breton, Mary B
These meetings are part of the stakeholder process initiated by the department, specifically on the topic of municipal reimbursement.
0:1:43.970 --> 0:1:54.180
Breton, Mary B
There will be 2 meetings on this topic. The first meeting which is this one, is to provide a chance for stakeholders to present comments and allow the stakeholders to review each other's comments.
0:1:54.850 --> 0:2:17.280
Breton, Mary B
The second meeting will provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to ask questions of each other regarding the various positions presented. The information from all the comments submitted and these discussions will be used as the basis for drafting rules that will be submitted to the Board of Environmental Protection as part of the full rulemaking process in December of 23 this year. Happy New Year everyone.
0:2:18.290 --> 0:2:33.670
Breton, Mary B
Comments submittal is not limited to attendees of this meeting. The department will accept all comments for considerations 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.
0:2:34.940 --> 0:2:44.430
Breton, Mary B
We asked that discussions be kept to this specific topic of municipal reimbursements as later stakeholder meetings and the previous meetings foscus on other topics.
0:2:45.110 --> 0:2:55.160
Breton, Mary B
We currently have 10 people who registered to attend this meeting in person and approximately 100 people registered who will be viewing the meeting live.
0:2:55.780 --> 0:3:21.50
Breton, Mary B
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 a presenter for everyone to hear your questions or comments. You do not have to be attending in person to ask questions or make a statement. Just use the raise hand feature.
0:3:22.150 --> 0:3:24.690
Breton, Mary B
Uh, I'll now hand the meeting over to Elena and Jessica.
0:3:25.760 --> 0:3:35.880
Breton, Mary B
Just real quick, I noticed a couple things in the chat. We're not going to be monitoring the chat, so if you'd like to ask a question or say anything else, hands is what we're going to need.
0:3:36.680 --> 0:3:37.230
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
0:4:1.910 --> 0:4:10.10
Breton, Mary B
So welcome back. Possibly, if not, welcome to those of you who are joining us this afternoon.
0:4:11.50 --> 0:4:18.540
Breton, Mary B
I have a list of those individuals who signed up to share comment and it's been auto populated so.
0:4:20.80 --> 0:4:26.270
Breton, Mary B
I'm going to go ahead and sound off folks from this list and just ask that you share your comments when you're asked to. What we'll do is we'll make you a presenter once we've identified who's sharing the comment, and then you can go from there.
0:4:41.200 --> 0:5:2.140
Breton, Mary B
After you share your comment, we'll just ask you to hang around because we'll see if there's any clarifying questions from anybody else in house or on the web, and we'll have those asked of you shortly after you share your comments. So just hang around after you do share a comment in case there's any clarifying questions that are being asked of your comment.
0:5:4.100 --> 0:5:6.680
Breton, Mary B
And so with that, I guess we'll start.
0:5:11.600 --> 0:5:15.390
Breton, Mary B
Is Sarah Languet with us from Purdue University?
0:5:22.380 --> 0:5:30.40
Breton, Mary B
We don't see you, so we're going to move on to the next person.
0:5:34.700 --> 0:5:50.310
Breton, Mary B
What would be helpful too is if I announce your name, and you're sharing a comment, raise your hand. It will help us to find you sooner than scrolling through the whole list of attendees. OK, so the second person on the list is Susan Parmelee.
0:5:51.380 --> 0:5:54.110
Breton, Mary B
Susan Parmelee from the city of South Portland.
0:6:9.840 --> 0:6:11.610
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
Hi everyone. Can you hear me?
0:6:13.830 --> 0:6:25.960
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
Hi. I'm Susan Parmelee. I'm the sustainability program manager from the City of South Portland. I'd like to thank the DEP for the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process today.
0:6:27.220 --> 0:6:37.70
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
So I I took a look at the background information that was provided a few weeks back, as well as some of the questions listed and I'm just going to pick a few of those to address.
0:6:38.220 --> 0:6:44.770
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
One of them was how municipalities should be reimbursed for packaging that is not readily recyclable.
0:6:46.130 --> 0:7:15.770
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
In our opinion, for materials that are not recycled by most local recycling facilities, municipalities should be reimbursed for the trash tipping fees for disposal because realistically, that is where those materials will end up. If the materials were to become more readily recyclable in the future than the fees should be changed accordingly. But if it's most likely going to the trash, and that's what it means, salaries will be paying for it and that's how we think they should be reimbursed.
0:7:16.630 --> 0:7:41.600
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
Similarly I am concerned that some packaging producers will set up ineffective stewardship programs to avoid paying for fees of non recyclable materials. For example, for plastic bags right now retailers have to provide a program so that they'll take plastic bags back. However, a very small percent of plastic bags are actually returned,  and municipalities end up paying for that disposal. 
0:7:48.370 --> 0:8:0.140
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
I'm just concerned other packaging producers will try to come up with similar programs that aren't effective, and those materials will realistically end up in our trash supply.
0:8:2.520 --> 0:8:21.990
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
There was also a question about how stewardship organizations could best support municipalities with auditing and reporting. South Portland is lucky enough to have the staff to collect and report the information that will likely be required for the EPR program. However, we do recognize that for a lot of Maine communities, that's not the case.
0:8:23.330 --> 0:8:40.150
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
And we think some reimbursements should go towards funding for equipment and personnel that's necessary to meet the requirements of this program. And as an ecomaine community, South Portland is also concerned of how reporting and auditing will impact recycling facilities.
0:8:40.800 --> 0:9:4.510
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
We already we know that the staff these facilities are stretched really thin and it's very difficult to find temporary workers to do extra tasks such as audits. So as a suggestion it would be helpful if the stewardship organization were able to provide third party auditors and that could be part of the reimbursement program as well.
0:9:5.860 --> 0:9:19.320
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
And then finally, one of the questions was asking to provide examples of costs that might be overlooked. And for South Portland's, we put funding every year into outreach and education.
0:9:20.660 --> 0:9:28.550
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
We're working always to increase our recycling rate. We're trying to reach the state's goal of 50% recycling, but many packaging companies make recycling really confusing and put misleading labels on their products. And so we believe that some of the reimbursement should go towards outreach and education as well. And that's all I have. Thank you.
0:9:48.410 --> 0:9:48.820
Breton, Mary B
Thanks.
0:9:50.0 --> 0:10:1.660
Breton, Mary B
Thank you, Susan. Susan, excuse me, as a reminder, be sure to send the comments in writing to mainePackagingEPR@maine.gov.
0:10:9.200 --> 0:10:9.820
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
0:10:9.460 --> 0:10:10.360
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
Got it, I will.
0:10:14.880 --> 0:10:39.710
Breton, Mary B
Now, we're just going to open up the floor to see if there's any questions. If they're in house or on the web, raise your hand and we'll get you the floor. OK. Andy Hackman in House has a question for you, Susan. (Andy Hackman) Are you familiar with the development of the legislation? All the 1541 at one point did include disposal cost in the original language, but that was removed from the legislation. 
0:10:41.70 --> 0:10:47.920
Breton, Mary B
(Andy Hackman) What basis are you suggesting that landfill cost should be supported in in reimbursement? Where does that come from the law?
0:10:48.340 --> 0:11:3.560
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
Oh, got it. OK, I did not realize that the disposal cost had been removed and it does feel like it's still an issue with a lot of packaging products. So I'm not exactly sure, but I'm sorry I didn't realize that.
0:11:7.170 --> 0:11:11.450
Breton, Mary B
We have another question for you from Jay Reynolds.
0:11:12.560 --> 0:11:16.590
Breton, Mary B
Jay, we're going to make you a presenter and then you can ask your question.
0:11:20.550 --> 0:11:22.310
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
Great. Thank you. Can you hear me?
0:11:23.70 --> 0:11:23.550
Breton, Mary B
Yes.
0:11:24.130 --> 0:11:27.780
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
I just had some comments. Is it OK to provide comments at this time?
0:11:31.580 --> 0:11:32.830
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
No, no, I'm not.
0:11:28.740 --> 0:11:38.450
Breton, Mary B
Are you speaking to Susan's comment? Hang on, I'll add you to the list and we'll get you the floor to share at another time.
0:11:38.700 --> 0:11:39.420
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
OK. Thanks.
0:11:39.690 --> 0:11:40.330
Breton, Mary B
No problem.
0:11:43.940 --> 0:11:50.30
Breton, Mary B
We still have some follow up questions. I think for you, Susan. So hang around, maybe Sarah next.
0:11:59.740 --> 0:12:0.200
Sarah Nichols
Hi.
0:11:56.950 --> 0:12:1.380
Breton, Mary B
So Sarah, if you have a question, a clarifying question?
0:12:5.590 --> 0:12:6.130
Sarah Nichols
Hi everybody.
0:12:7.450 --> 0:12:14.730
Sarah Nichols
Wasn't necessarily a clarifying question for Susan, but more response to Andy's question. Oh, sorry, my screen just blank.
0:12:15.250 --> 0:12:33.780
Sarah Nichols
As I understand it, what was in the background document and the language in the in the law actually says the municipalities will be reimbursed for all of the packaging material that they manage and it doesn't really specify if it's managed through disposal or recycling or some other manner.
0:12:34.530 --> 0:12:36.120
Sarah Nichols
Maybe somebody from the department can draw attention to that in the background document.
0:12:40.760 --> 0:12:44.370
Breton, Mary B
Uh, yes, it's ‘managed’ that is the term that's used in statute and it's, I think, intentionally vague which is why we had asked for comments as to whether that should be reimbursed or not.
0:12:59.680 --> 0:13:0.830
Sarah Nichols
OK. Thank you. That's all.
0:13:6.900 --> 0:13:12.890
Breton, Mary B
So Tony might have a follow up question for you, Susan. We're going to give him the floor, find out if that's the case.
0:13:32.860 --> 0:13:33.370
Tony Smith
There we are. I agree with Susan.
0:13:37.910 --> 0:13:53.60
Tony Smith
That that the non recyclable should be reimbursed the tip fee. That effort has been made to pull those out and they're going to end up in the garbage. That's MSW. I agree that the tip fee for MSW should be the amount that's reimbursed.
0:13:57.630 --> 0:14:4.720
Tony Smith
I think we'll pull more out than not if going in, the folks will know that they'll get at least the tipping fee for the disposal.
0:14:13.410 --> 0:14:13.900
Tony Smith
Thank you.
0:14:14.310 --> 0:14:15.340
Breton, Mary B
OK. Thank you.
0:14:16.880 --> 0:14:27.270
Breton, Mary B
OK, it doesn't seem like there's any other questions on the web or in house. So thank you, Susan. We're going to put you back into the attendee status.
0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:28.490
Susan Parmelee (Guest)
Thank you.
0:14:29.170 --> 0:14:32.110
Breton, Mary B
I think we should just have Jay Reynolds next.
0:14:33.290 --> 0:14:40.350
Breton, Mary B
Jay, if you can raise your hand, we're going to go ahead and give you the floor to share your comment. That's Jay Reynolds.
0:14:59.750 --> 0:15:32.80
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
Great. Thank you. My name is Jay Reynolds. I'm the public works director for the town of Cape Elizabeth and Cape Elizabeth is a member of community of ecomaine, similar to Susan in South Portland. And I just, I have their 2022 report, which has just some good facts to share with you. And then I'll sort of get into my comment. They work collaboratively to manage 215 tons of recyclables and solid waste for more than 450,000 Mainers in 73 communities that's straight out of there 2022 report.
0:15:36.770 --> 0:15:38.20
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
And because they manage so many municipalities, they also track all of our single stream and our MSW tonnages for all 73 of those communities. So my suggestion to the group today would be to reach out to them as a direct stakeholder because they do represent so much of the state and the communities and see if they're tracking of materials can be somehow worked into the rulemaking that way. It would make it easier for all the municipalities to report on our materials that that we transfer from our facilities. So that's all I had and thank you for your time. I appreciate it very much.
0:16:25.770 --> 0:16:29.360
Breton, Mary B
Thank you, Jay. Be sure to send us those comments and writing please.
0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:31.660
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
Thank you.
0:16:30.570 --> 0:16:33.720
Breton, Mary B
And stick around just a quick question before you go.
0:16:37.810 --> 0:16:45.310
Breton, Mary B
And when we think about what ecomaine can report versus what a town would need to report, I assume Cape Elizabeth has additional information, we could get tonnages perhaps from Eco main, but Cape Elizabeth would have additional costs that are more than just its tip fee at ecomaine, correct?
0:16:57.700 --> 0:17:7.30
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
That is correct. Yeah. We pay the tipping fees through ecomaine. However, we also have the collection consolidation and transport.
0:17:8.610 --> 0:17:11.120
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
You know, costs that are associated with all that as well.
0:17:11.660 --> 0:17:13.70
Breton, Mary B
Yeah, I figured. Thank you.
0:17:13.790 --> 0:17:14.210
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
Thank you.
0:17:18.670 --> 0:17:25.200
Breton, Mary B
Tony might have a follow up question to you, Jay, so just stick around, Tony, we're giving you the floor again.
0:17:26.720 --> 0:17:31.10
Tony Smith
Thank. Thank you. But I'm just trying to clear the hand.
0:17:31.230 --> 0:17:32.110
Breton, Mary B
Oh, OK.
0:17:42.520 --> 0:17:44.410
Breton, Mary B
OK, so we're giving you the floor to Matt Grondin.
0:17:54.0 --> 0:18:4.860
Matt Grondin
Hey folks, thank you and thanks to Jay for bringing up the annual report for ecomaine. I'm the author of that report, so I appreciate that very much.
0:18:6.20 --> 0:18:24.470
Matt Grondin
I just want to follow up and say, you know we have we pride ourselves on having lots of that data available as do our colleagues in the waste management industry. But to Elena's point, it is not a comprehensive look at white goods or tires or things like that.
0:18:29.70 --> 0:18:46.300
Matt Grondin
Hopefully we can take a more comprehensive look into the entirety of the waste stream, but you know we will be more than happy to provide our input on the auditing process and we're looking forward to that meeting as well.
0:18:47.240 --> 0:18:50.70
Matt Grondin
I’m happy to answer any questions at this point or later.
0:18:53.60 --> 0:18:53.260
Breton, Mary B
OK. Than you.
0:19:0.20 --> 0:19:12.90
Breton, Mary B
There’s no questions for Matt so we are going to prepare the floor for the next commenter, which I have here is Sarah Nichols from Natural Resources Council of Maine.
0:19:26.730 --> 0:19:33.920
Sarah Nichols
Alright, thank you. OK, I'm having a technical difficulty over here, so hopefully my screen stays up.
0:19:35.510 --> 0:19:46.490
Sarah Nichols
So, good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the topic of municipal reimbursements under Maine’s new EPR for packaging law. My name is Sarah Nichols and I'm the sustainable Maine director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
0:19:47.460 --> 0:19:56.400
Sarah Nichols
And our council remains committed to ensuring the success of this program, which means that we are working hard to encourage the most participation from and support for our municipalities as possible.
0:19:57.560 --> 0:20:5.980
Sarah Nichols
I'll be submitting more detailed written comments to the department, but wanted to focus on the why, what, who, how and when aspects of the municipal reimbursement payments today.
0:20:6.760 --> 0:20:9.360
Sarah Nichols
And I'll be addressing some of the questions in the background document along the way so bear with me.
0:20:12.760 --> 0:20:32.750
Sarah Nichols
So first is the why you just pull reimbursements? I wanted to kind of ground this in first. Municipalities have historically had to pay for all of the packaging waste entering their communities, which the department has estimated cost them 16 to 17 and a half million taxpayer dollars per year as of the 2019 Product Stewardship report.
0:20:33.370 --> 0:20:38.700
Sarah Nichols
They manage and pay for all of this, even though they have no control over the amount of type of materials that they have to deal with.
0:20:39.800 --> 0:20:53.470
Sarah Nichols
If the packaging they receive happens to be recyclable that year, then they can opt to set up a recycling program and then educate their residents on how to participate and pay for all of it. And if it's not designed for recycling, then they must pay high fees to dispose of it in a landfill or incinerator.
0:20:54.340 --> 0:21:2.780
Sarah Nichols
Municipalities also have no control over the use of recycled content and packaging, which supports strong recycling markets and helps make the economics of recycling work in their favor.
0:21:3.490 --> 0:21:13.520
Sarah Nichols
Nor did they have control how packages labeled with recycling or disposal instructions that could significantly reduce confusion and help with the consumer education aspect.
0:21:14.230 --> 0:21:24.620
Sarah Nichols
Our towns also pay for the cost of problematic packaging materials that contaminate our waste streams that grade the quality of our recycled commodities, jam equipment, or prone to being windswept and becoming litter in our environment.
0:21:25.780 --> 0:21:36.970
Sarah Nichols
So we have a growing, changing waste stream made largely of disposable packaging materials that are not only straining municipal budgets, but they are putting significant stress on our environment and threatening the sustainability of our planet.
0:21:37.900 --> 0:22:1.280
Sarah Nichols
For anyone who may recall their economic classroom school, this is a textbook example of a special type of market failure called a negative externality, where some people, namely the producers of all this packaging waste, are benefiting from pushing the cost of waste management on to other people who do not benefit from packaging waste, namely Maine’s property taxpayers and our future generations. And so it's no wonder why we have the waste problem we do under this municipally funded approach.
0:22:2.300 --> 0:22:16.180
Sarah Nichols
So EPR brings about the more a more fundamental paradigm shift that we need to make our waste management efforts fairer, more effective and more sustainable, which is largely due to shifting the cost to the responsible party, which are the producers of all the packaging materials.
0:22:16.970 --> 0:22:24.320
Sarah Nichols
This shift to cost internalization is a policy tool which is used to correct negative externalities or what I like to call the polluter pays method.
0:22:25.100 --> 0:22:34.880
Sarah Nichols
We've seen this approach used all over the world to cost effectively reduce waste and significantly increased recycling, and I'm very proud of Maine for leading away here in the United States.
0:22:35.910 --> 0:22:38.490
Sarah Nichols
So I'm going to switch to what cost should be reimbursed.
0:22:39.600 --> 0:23:10.70
Sarah Nichols
And our council believes that to be most effective means municipality should be reimbursed for all costs related to management of the covered packaging materials, which includes costs associated with collection, sorting and processing of recycling to processing of recycling, disposal or litter costs, as well as education and outreach expenses. And it should be for all costs associated with packaging and homes, schools and public areas, as well as any costs incurred to participate in the EPR for packaging program, basically anywhere that the taxpayer is ultimately footing the bill should be covered.
0:23:11.110 --> 0:23:16.810
Sarah Nichols
We encourage the department to be thorough and specific and outline and determine all of the packaging related costs to our communities.
0:23:17.970 --> 0:23:35.240
Sarah Nichols
The statute also requires that the reimbursement payments to municipalities encourage them to manage the materials in a way that supports our waste management hierarchy much in the same way that the producer fees are eco-modulated to encourage them to reduce waste and design more reusable, recyclable packaging.
0:23:36.200 --> 0:23:43.200
Sarah Nichols
Our ideas for how we can encourage municipalities to work to move more materials up the hierarchy include, but are not limited to, bonus payments to municipalities who have successful policies in place, such as pay as you throw policies or those that support reusable packaging for local restaurants and businesses.
0:23:55.360 --> 0:24:5.720
Sarah Nichols
Or bonus payments to municipalities that sell recycled commodities to recyclers that use responsible or more local end markets and reduce transportation of these materials and associated emissions.
0:24:6.870 --> 0:24:27.770
Sarah Nichols
And when it comes to the disposal side, we encourage the department to treat waste to energy and landfilling to be the same undesirable outcome and keep the focus on the higher rungs of the hierarchy, which are waste reduction, reuse and recycling. I feel like we've seen an argument over waste energy versus landfilling divide or municipalities in the past, and I think it's best to keep the focus of the hierarchy for this one.
0:24:28.990 --> 0:24:33.0
Sarah Nichols
So who should be reimbursed for the cost of managing packaging waste? The next question.
0:24:33.960 --> 0:24:38.600
Sarah Nichols
This program is voluntary, but to be successful we need as many towns as possible to participate.
0:24:39.290 --> 0:24:47.100
Sarah Nichols
And because of that, we'd like to stewardship organization to take a no municipality left behind approach and we encourage existing municipal groups to rally their members.
0:24:47.830 --> 0:25:10.260
Sarah Nichols
So to do this, we think that the stewardship organization should be required to hire additional staffers for the first few years of the program so they can assist municipalities and getting recycling program started or expanded to include all readily recyclable commodities so that they qualify for reimbursement and also they can give direct assistance municipalities to fill out their reports that enable them to be reimbursed to the maximum extent possible.
0:25:11.320 --> 0:25:17.350
Sarah Nichols
The stewardship organization should be given enforceable goals to reach and regarding outreach and municipal recruitment.
0:25:19.120 --> 0:25:38.560
Sarah Nichols
We also hope that existing municipal groups that already work together on waste, such as our Councils of Government, ecomaine, Municipal Review Committee and others, will help ensure that all of their member communities are aware of this new program and ready to participate when the law goes into effect. And they could/should consider playing a role in representing the group when it comes to reimbursement.
0:25:39.820 --> 0:25:44.870
Sarah Nichols
OK, I'm going to bring it in. Friendly ending soon. Promise. So how should reimbursement payments be made?
0:25:45.800 --> 0:25:58.370
Sarah Nichols
So to simplify the reimbursement process, the regulation should establish a formula for municipal reimbursement that models the key cost factors supported by studies and audits to determine the cost associated with managing packaging waste in our communities.
0:25:59.50 --> 0:26:7.140
Sarah Nichols
This approach would be less burdensome to municipalities than a system that requires each of them to provide detailed accounting, reporting and reimbursement of actual costs.
0:26:8.460 --> 0:26:25.100
Sarah Nichols
Further, we believe that initial regulations should focus on the first few years of the program and then refine the formula over time once they slight information has been established and I'll put more detailed recommendations for considering reimbursement formula and what information should be required to be provided by municipalities. In my written comments.
0:26:26.670 --> 0:26:33.410
Sarah Nichols
And finally, when should reimbursement payments be made? I believe this should be annual and as soon as possible.
0:26:34.360 --> 0:27:2.250
Sarah Nichols
We defer to our municipal representatives on the time of year that reporting could be done most easily and we continue to urge the department to amend the schedule for implementation of this program to remove reference to any major substantive rulemaking for exemptions. We do not support any exemptions through major substantive rule, but if that happens, then the issuance of the RFP can happen concurrently with any major substantive rulemaking activity. And doing so could get payments from municipalities at least a year sooner than is currently projected on the website.
0:27:3.100 --> 0:27:12.340
Sarah Nichols
OK. So thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on this important aspect of Maine's EPR for packaging program and I'd be happy to answer any questions from you all. Thank you.
0:27:14.80 --> 0:27:18.630
Breton, Mary B
Thank you, Sarah. We do have one follow up question from Tony.
0:27:24.840 --> 0:27:28.880
Tony Smith
Sarah is a hard person to follow. She knows her stuff.
0:27:31.0 --> 0:27:37.750
Tony Smith
I'm I just retired as public works director for the town of Mount Desert at the end of October. As vice president of the MRC, I was pleased to hear Sarah mention the MRC and one of the reasons I'm attending these meetings is on behalf of the MRC.
0:27:52.510 --> 0:28:0.450
Tony Smith
I'm learning there's a lot of us are learning as we go. I've read the law twice and I still am a bit confused but it'll come eventually.
0:28:1.750 --> 0:28:18.340
Tony Smith
We're committed to helping with this program and we just need to figure out how we're going to do that. We've met with the DEP once before. This is my second meeting. I missed the first one on exemptions, but we are committed to helping and making this program work.
0:28:28.250 --> 0:28:28.440
Sarah Nichols
Yeah.
0:28:20.350 --> 0:28:30.610
Tony Smith
And just so everyone knows, we're getting very close to being up and running close as a relative word. But we are getting very close, very encouraged.
0:28:35.830 --> 0:28:37.450
Breton, Mary B
That's good to hear, Tony. Thanks.
0:28:39.290 --> 0:28:41.820
Breton, Mary B
I have one more question. Uh, Sarah, you mentioned the idea of certain recycling efforts somehow being rewarded over other recycling efforts.
0:28:55.900 --> 0:28:56.410
Breton, Mary B
Have you thought about how? You know, what's a better recycling outcome than another in a less good recycling outcome?
0:29:17.730 --> 0:29:20.460
Breton, Mary B
Either now or later. Thoughts on that would be appreciated.
0:29:21.140 --> 0:29:24.910
Sarah Nichols
Sure. I guess, yeah, we maybe need hierarchies for each step of the hierarchy.
0:29:26.290 --> 0:29:32.600
Sarah Nichols
But for this, recycling ultimately is the purpose to turn material into a new product so that it's actually is offsetting the use of virgin materials. 
0:29:41.440 --> 0:30:2.870
Sarah Nichols
That's the reason why we do it, so you know, that to me, that's true recycling. And then of course, we talk of downcycling. Maybe it's turned into something else that's maybe, you know, not as good as using it for something new or for some other beneficial purpose that just maybe it makes one more step because of that it becomes wasteful. I’m happy to give that a little bit more thought. I'll put that in my comments.
0:30:13.570 --> 0:30:14.140
Breton, Mary B
Thanks.
0:30:14.720 --> 0:30:15.130
Sarah Nichols
Thank you.
0:30:20.690 --> 0:30:24.210
Breton, Mary B
We've got another question from in hour, so hang around.
0:30:24.390 --> 0:30:24.660
Sarah Nichols
OK.
0:30:26.230 --> 0:30:27.450
Breton, Mary B
Neal Cowles in Belfast here. I’m trying to help your effort in any way I can. I was curious about your thoughts on the reimbursement and reporting cycle being annual.
0:30:44.920 --> 0:30:55.530
Breton, Mary B
Just wondering if you had had thought about maybe increasing the frequency setting the frequency of the annual basis as required, but maybe provide incentives for shorter cycle times to  provide more accurate data throughout the year and keep the money kind of flowing at a faster rate.
0:31:13.610 --> 0:31:16.640
Sarah Nichols
Thank you for your question. I thought about it insofar as I don't want to make it too burdensome for municipalities to participate. So you know, if it's more than once a year, then that's more work for them to do. 
0:31:27.690 --> 0:31:37.470
Sarah Nichols
This question is more for the municipalities themselves to see how that would work best for them. But you know, we also have this other problem where municipalities just to get started, they do have to raise these funds through taxes to start and then they get reimbursed later. So to come up with those funds at the beginning might be prohibitive for some of them. I guess my concern is more like just how we get this going so it's sustainable over time and l’m worried about that very first year. So maybe there's a way to consider how we would get funds to municipalities up front.
0:32:2.290 --> 0:32:10.790
Sarah Nichols
To do that, I think it's an idea to consider, but I'll be here for the next meeting when the discussion will happen. I'm eager to hear what everybody has to say about the specific question.
0:32:15.490 --> 0:32:25.440
Breton, Mary B
All right. So that concludes all the. No, maybe it doesn't. I think we have someone else who might have a clarifying question for you. Abigail, we're making you a presenter.
0:33:0.110 --> 0:33:6.760
Breton, Mary B
Abigail, if you're still in the webinar, if you could raise your hand.
0:34:2.620 --> 0:34:3.940
Sztein, Abigail
Thank you. I appreciate it.
0:34:5.970 --> 0:34:10.40
Sztein, Abigail
I'm Abby Sztein. I'm with the American Forest and Paper Association, and some of Ms. Nichols comments were very interesting and I'm curious. When we think a little bit about the cost of collection of transportation processing and that kind of thing, I think, and this is something that we've put into comments in the past, there are some opportunities and values in there being a share between consumers, communities and producers.
0:34:41.180 --> 0:35:7.400
Sztein, Abigail
It's a situation where, you know, the idea of this EPR program is in order to bring lots of resources to the table. But I think there's also a reality where, and not to be facetious, but if, for example, a taxpayer was choosing to live on an isolated island or on a mountain, that's nonetheless part of a municipality and the cost of that because they're in a municipality, suddenly to be borne by the producer, that could escalate rather quickly, especially if there aren't some sort of barriers, boundaries, guardrails in place. Obviously, mountains and island is not unrealistic in Maine, but really taking it very far. 
0:35:41.690 --> 0:36:10.360
Sztein, Abigail
Perhaps there would be value in some sort of grading or levels or setting of reasonable boundary for how the cost of collection becomes a part of it. One of the reasons why Maine is such a unique state when it comes to solid waste management is that you know not only have your more populated areas, but you have areas that are fairly isolated and so no matter how keen on management the residents might be, it's complicated. And I think that that should be a part of the calculations that should be inclusive of producers, municipalities, the DEP and so on. Thoughts on that?
0:36:20.540 --> 0:36:24.300
Sarah Nichols
I have a thought on that Abby if that was directed towards me or anybody else.
0:36:25.780 --> 0:36:31.610
Sarah Nichols
So I’ll just go ahead. Thank you for bringing that up. And I think you know you might like then that the reimbursement payments are per based on median costs per ton. So that's really that efficiency factor.
0:36:44.290 --> 0:36:53.10
Sarah Nichols
That when you when you organize it in that way and you go to the median and it really doesn't let those outliers, those people that live out on islands and on the tops of mountains really influence that payment so much.
0:36:57.910 --> 0:37:0.340
Sarah Nichols
The program was designed to kind of reward really efficient programs and the municipalities that have more than less efficient programs and more cost due to whatever reason they might have that you're gonna have to pay extra.
0:37:15.800 --> 0:37:48.320
Sztein, Abigail
Absolutely. And that makes a lot of sense. I think that's also where having an assessment of programs in place and how they function ahead of time in order to ascertain if this medium cost is realistic or not. Are there opportunities to better understand where things can be made more efficient based on what other municipalities in the States are already doing? Is that something that can be happening too as opposed to maybe having these funds that must be paid for for the first couple of years and maybe we adjust later.
0:37:57.590 --> 0:38:0.360
Sarah Nichols
Yeah, that sounds like a good role for the stewardship organization to play.
0:38:4.330 --> 0:38:8.600
Breton, Mary B
Well, we (DEP) will be getting a lot of data and so I think you're right.
0:38:10.890 --> 0:38:16.930
Breton, Mary B
Abby, there's a real tradeoff between getting good data that's going to really show you well, these municipalities are doing it more efficiently, and for this reason, because we can really see into their cost, there's a real tradeoff between looking and getting really good data on those costs and then making it easy for municipalities to report.
0:38:39.920 --> 0:38:40.690
Breton, Mary B
So I think there's room to sort of make sure that we are looking at those costs and finding the best practices for sure.
0:38:50.200 --> 0:38:50.790
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
0:38:54.810 --> 0:39:4.820
Breton, Mary B
Oh yeah, we have a few lined up for clarifying questions to Sarah still. So, Holly Lusk, we're going to make you a presenter.
0:39:8.980 --> 0:39:10.110
Holly Lusk
Hi everyone. Can you hear me?
0:39:10.600 --> 0:39:11.80
Breton, Mary B
Yes.
0:39:11.510 --> 0:39:16.220
Holly Lusk
OK, wonderful. Yeah, I just had a clarifying question for Sarah and NRCM.
0:39:17.380 --> 0:39:47.240
Holly Lusk
Sarah, as you know, I represent the Consumer Brands Association. I'm a lawyer at Baxter Law. And the question that I had goes back to something that Andy was talking about earlier, which was that the original version of the bill was very specific and providing compensation for disposal. That provision was removed in at least by the time the final legislation was passed. And I guess my question is, what is NRCM’s position at this point?
0:39:47.310 --> 0:39:52.430
Holly Lusk
The language that's left in there is vague in terms of whether disposal would be covered or not.
0:39:55.500 --> 0:40:6.820
Sarah Nichols
I don't know if I would use the word vague. I think it leaves it up to the discretion of the department through the rulemaking process to decide what cost should be reimbursed and what management of packaging materials should be covered under the program.
0:40:7.850 --> 0:40:8.200
Holly Lusk
OK.
0:40:7.690 --> 0:40:17.630
Sarah Nichols
I think that the law was amended to take out explicit reference to disposal that would have ensured that, but I think that the rule making process is here to determine whether or not that should be included.
0:40:18.300 --> 0:40:19.460
Holly Lusk
Thank you. I appreciate it.
0:40:22.80 --> 0:40:28.780
Breton, Mary B
OK. And then I don't think we have any other follow up questions. Yes, we do in the house.
0:40:37.180 --> 0:41:7.870
Breton, Mary B
Thanks, Sarah. My name is Laura Berry. I'm the sustainability coordinator for the town of Bar Harbor and I'm curious just whether NRCM or you have thoughts specifically on going back to the question of different communities and different costs and trying to have efficiency and implementing this program around how the determination of similar communities and the per ton cost of reimbursements going to look specifically around as our communities both has mountains and is on an island.
0:41:7.950 --> 0:41:37.960
Breton, Mary B
The highest cost for our recycling programs is actually about hauling. So it's not actually efficiency on our end, it's the availability and distance of facilities that we can actually bring our recycling to. And so there's not really not much that we can do to actually improve efficiency. And I worry that communities within distance a longer distance to those facilities would be disincentivized from participating just because it's not going to be worth it for them if it's a median per ton cost. So I'm curious if NRCM has a specific position specifically on how to determine similar communities under this this program.
0:41:45.670 --> 0:41:47.140
Sarah Nichols
That's a really, really good question.
0:41:47.220 --> 0:41:56.930
Sarah Nichols
I think I like to turn concerns into solutions. So I think that there would be a solution to this.
0:41:58.100 --> 0:41:59.950
Sarah Nichols
So there's other communities with similar issues. So I think that that should be that should be part of the thing that would group them together as a similar municipality. I've looked in some other places, you know, I feel like we should. We're probably going to end up with, I don't know, three to six different groupings depending on what it is. And you know, that's what this process is really meant to figure out. I would like to think that no matter how it shakes out, it'll be worth it to participate to, to get reimbursed.
0:42:38.760 --> 0:42:45.130
Breton, Mary B
OK, so Tony might have a clarifying question for you as well. Tony, we're making you a presenter now.
0:42:49.150 --> 0:42:52.470
Tony Smith
Well, thank you. It's not a clarifying question, it's a comment.
0:42:53.960 --> 0:43:13.790
Tony Smith
We reopened our own recycling center in January of this year and one of the problems I've seen is rising costs and it's not the transportation directly to us. When we open January one, we had a tip fee of $75. Two, three months later, it went to $150.
0:43:15.220 --> 0:43:16.670
Tony Smith
Then I went to 225/ton. Then I went to 265.
0:43:21.160 --> 0:43:27.530
Tony Smith
And you had to be pretty on the ball to notice is increases because they were just buried in the in the invoices.
0:43:30.70 --> 0:43:53.740
Tony Smith
That is certainly a disincentive to recycle when, and granted we don't have a contract with this entity, so I've been looking. Actually, I'm retired, someone else will be looking into more cost effective ways to recycle that. That's just comment. I wanted to make and I'm sure there's a lot of us in that same boat. We have no choice.
0:43:55.750 --> 0:44:15.740
Tony Smith
I don't think so much being on an island here is a problem with mountains. If it's the distance, it's just the distance. A straight line distance between point A and point B, where the recycling centers are Sarah. You said there would be 6, maybe, but you're not about centralized one big central or 10?
0:44:21.520 --> 0:44:22.200
Sarah Nichols
Yeah, no.
0:44:18.540 --> 0:44:22.610
Tony Smith
It's not. It's not a hold you to it question. Just wondering what you mean by that.
0:44:23.110 --> 0:44:30.940
Sarah Nichols
I'm just speculating based on what other jurisdictions have done. Yeah, I think that what you know this part of why we're here all to figure that kind of stuff out.
0:44:30.290 --> 0:44:31.280
Tony Smith
Yep, Yep.
0:44:32.400 --> 0:44:46.20
Sarah Nichols
And I like, you know, I think part of the reason that an EPR for packaging is going to be so important and transformative as I think it's going to really make the economics work for every town, so that it's going to be the clear choice to have a recycling program to save money.
0:44:47.400 --> 0:44:49.940
Sarah Nichols
By moving those materials into recycling and out of disposal.
0:44:51.150 --> 0:45:14.350
Tony Smith
And typically what I've learned over the years is the best way to help someone to encourage someone to do it. Anything is hit them in the pocketbook. This reimbursement helps offset some of those costs that we're going to incur to conform just in general, at some point. 
0:45:15.40 --> 0:45:25.730
Tony Smith
Will the SO, do you think everybody that they'll be putting together software package to distribute to the communities will standardized it and make it really straightforward to use?
0:45:35.760 --> 0:45:45.220
Sarah Nichols
I was as I was thinking about this, I used TurboTax for my taxes and I really like how it like walks you through every little thing. So I was thinking something like that would be really nice for this.
0:45:44.740 --> 0:46:10.850
Tony Smith
We have to report our diesel fuel, salt and sand to MEMA. And when I first started this job, the forms were filled out by hand. Then they started developing software and we were the proofers of that software over the years. And now it's simple. But that was an 18 to 19 year process that if we can keep the reporting straightforward simple I think it I think we'll get good data.
0:46:11.990 --> 0:46:12.470
Tony Smith
Thank you.
0:46:12.750 --> 0:46:17.100
Breton, Mary B
Can you say the name of that entity that you report the same as all to again?
0:46:17.730 --> 0:46:21.320
Tony Smith
MEMA, Maine Emergency Management Agency.
0:46:25.990 --> 0:46:26.510
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
0:46:26.230 --> 0:46:27.750
Tony Smith
And to our local Fire Chief, and to the county.
0:46:37.960 --> 0:46:45.380
Breton, Mary B
I don't think we have any follow up questions for you. Thank you so much for your endurance with all that.
0:46:43.710 --> 0:46:46.280
Sarah Nichols
Thank you. Yeah, thank you.
0:46:46.130 --> 0:46:49.780
Breton, Mary B
OK. But Tony, while we have you as a presenter, would you?
0:46:51.690 --> 0:46:54.580
Breton, Mary B
Would you like to share your prepared comments at this time?
0:46:55.180 --> 0:47:5.570
Tony Smith
Uh, quite frankly, sure, if my colleague on the MRC, Bob Butler, doesn't mind, he prepared them. He's got 3 here.
0:47:6.820 --> 0:47:7.360
Tony Smith
Uh.
0:47:6.490 --> 0:47:22.90
Breton, Mary B
OK, so either, Yep, whatever you guys want to do. Wait. I do have Bob signed up to share comment as well. So maybe we'll just get, we'll get Bob involved. Can you raise your hand, Bob, please. So we can find you.
0:47:39.170 --> 0:47:41.680
Bob Butler (Guest)
Tony, go ahead please.
0:47:47.0 --> 0:47:49.230
Tony Smith
I just leave that smile there for a second.
0:47:50.710 --> 0:47:59.590
Tony Smith
Bob put together some good information. One goes back to the data accuracy and the EPR program credibility and I will read this. I don't mind reading.
0:48:0.540 --> 0:48:10.990
Tony Smith
Many Maine towns are not a part of regional collection and waste processing efforts and even those that are do not have certified scales.
0:48:11.860 --> 0:48:21.950
Tony Smith
How do we think many municipalities are to keep accurate and credible track of the quantities of EPR category waste without access to certified scales?
0:48:23.60 --> 0:48:43.710
Tony Smith
In the absence of accurate data, how compounds accurately track such packaging materials for reimbursement purposes, the EPR program must ensure that all Maine communities have reasonable access to certified scales so they can measure the amounts and kinds of packaging against which reimbursements are to be made.
0:48:54.820 --> 0:49:0.960
Tony Smith
OK. If you like, I can go on to, I'll I can go through all three of Bob’s comments if you like.
0:49:1.790 --> 0:49:6.0
Tony Smith
They are very well written. We can forward this to you folks.
0:49:6.680 --> 0:49:8.350
Tony Smith
The second one is ordinances.
0:49:10.150 --> 0:49:38.380
Tony Smith
A model ordinance with provisions that address EPR is essential to the EPR program to gain traction at the local level, and I agree with Bob on that. The ordinance is needed to encourage the process of the public deliberations about the importance of the EPR to each Maine community and especially among communities that share transfer stations and or waste processing facilities. I might point out Bob is a director of the MRC as am I.
0:49:39.620 --> 0:50:9.900
Tony Smith
The ordinance could educate each Maine community about EPR and how it will be implemented and increase general appreciation of EPR as a source of municipal funds. If residents are asked to vote on a solid waste ordinance that addresses EPR and other solid waste disposal matter matters, chances for the program being successful likely increase. Some regard Maine state EPR statute as an adequate substitute for local ordinance.
0:50:10.170 --> 0:50:29.820
Tony Smith
Approved, local ordinance would be a far more effective tool for increasing awareness, nurturing local participation and encouraging the capture of EPR. Funding for local waste disposal efforts and in my opinion, a local ordinance shows local control versus Big Brother saying this is how you're going to do it.
0:50:33.320 --> 0:50:39.580
Tony Smith
Let me just get back to where we are committed to helping our members with the EPR program in the run up to what used to be called Fiber Right. We spent many hours and miles on the road visiting almost all of the member towns, communities and groups to address their questions and concerns about this high tech centralized waste management facility. So some of us did that. We're used to that and we want to make sure we're going to try to make sure that all the Members understand what this is.
0:51:19.50 --> 0:51:39.380
Tony Smith
#3 that Bob prepared, the EPR could discriminate against disadvantaged communities. EPR is a potential nonstarter for less affluent communities that have needed the staff and the waste processing infrastructure to measure record the data needed to make the PR program effective.
0:51:40.100 --> 0:51:53.720
Tony Smith
The proposition that the proposal is voluntary essentially disenfranchises those communities that are not in a position to volunteer because they are unable to provide the data EPR needs to move the program forward.
0:51:54.530 --> 0:52:5.500
Tony Smith
EPR reimbursements will go home to those times that have the wherewithal to volunteer for the program. Those that cannot afford to volunteer because they lack resources will be left behind.
0:52:6.140 --> 0:52:30.320
Tony Smith
Guaranteeing the cooperation of regional waste processing facilities that represent the interests of groups of communities, whether disadvantaged or not, is one way of mitigating discrimination. Regional processing facilities would be able to account for EPR category waste because they have certified scales. Moreover, they are in a position to share EPR reimbursements among the members.
0:52:31.610 --> 0:52:50.230
Tony Smith
While not a totally satisfactory solution, recording the support of regional waste processing facilities in the EPR effort would simplify reporting and moderate unfairness towards those disadvantaged communities that have joined a regional waste processing system.
0:52:53.850 --> 0:53:3.780
Tony Smith
We have in the MRC’s group of towns tiny towns and big towns and we will help them all equally to participate successfully in the EPR program. That that is one of our goals, that's one of the reasons I ran for reelection this time around.
0:53:17.130 --> 0:53:19.860
Breton, Mary B
I have a couple of questions that the certified scale issue.
0:53:21.220 --> 0:53:47.620
Breton, Mary B
My understanding, especially given that last piece of the comment, is that even if, say, Walterboro transfer station doesn't have a scale, the place that's receiving either a commodity or a something to be tipped does have a scale and I assumed that the municipality gets that data on weight because that's how the municipality is either charged or paid, correct?
0:53:48.330 --> 0:53:58.80
Tony Smith
Yes, that's the way we are. The hours MSW goes to a local transfer station and it's weighed in on certified scales over there, for example.
0:54:4.290 --> 0:54:9.450
Breton, Mary B
So there is data on the weight of material that is leaving a municipality. I guess I'm confused by the certified scale issue.
0:54:16.590 --> 0:54:25.60
Tony Smith
Those scales have been inspected and checked for accuracy, and we also need to make sure that they're used.
0:54:26.620 --> 0:54:32.420
Breton, Mary B
Uh, so making sure that when a municipality sends its material, to say wherever it's sending it at the other end that those scales are certified, either a mill if it's a processed bale of material or a, you know at ecomaine, or Fiber Right-type facility whose scale is certified.
0:54:43.720 --> 0:54:54.860
Tony Smith
Yeah, there's typically a certificate on the wall that states that that set of scales have been inspected by the state of Maine and that they're accurate.
0:54:55.660 --> 0:55:6.370
Breton, Mary B
OK. Thank you. And then the other, I guess I wasn't quite understanding the model ordinances suggestion. Is there an examples? It would be helpful to us if you could provide an example of 1 maybe at a later date?
0:55:15.810 --> 0:55:19.560
Tony Smith
OK. Yep. Bob and I can work on that.
0:55:34.190 --> 0:55:38.420
Tony Smith
On exemptions, I was asking if there is going to be a list of specific items that are exempt, I think if you just go to look and see if the item you're holding or looking at is on that list as exempt with the Model Ordinance.
0:55:53.640 --> 0:56:0.190
Tony Smith
We don't have a solid waste ordinance. We don't have a flow control ordinance, but I think with the Model ordinance and keeping it simple, it would describe again very briefly what the EPR programs about and it also shows a local control versus something coming down.
0:56:17.160 --> 0:56:18.980
Bob Butler (Guest)
If I could add Tony, we found that in our process in Walterboro, Cushing and Friendship, all three of which towns share transfer station, that we didn't gain traction, and should we actually have an ordinance in place and a lot of towns, they don't have ordinances, they rely on whatever the state provides, and most people don't read them, they're not involved in the process of creating them, debating them, voting on them, and it's that process that's so key to increasing awareness and educating people. If you go out throughout some brochures and put them in mailboxes, half of them, more than half will get thrown away. People will pay absolutely no attention to them.
0:57:2.260 --> 0:57:11.480
Bob Butler (Guest)
But if you're establishing a program that's going to impact their taxes, it's an entirely different matter and ordinance will help to establish that process.
0:57:15.0 --> 0:57:20.90
Breton, Mary B
OK, thank you. I may follow up with you later. I think we have your contact information.
0:57:22.230 --> 0:57:27.500
Breton, Mary B
And I think Shelby might have a follow up question for you. So just stick around.
0:58:4.230 --> 0:58:5.640
Tony Smith
Hey, Shelby, how are you?
0:58:5.260 --> 0:58:6.220
Bob Butler (Guest)
Hey, Shelby.
0:58:48.450 --> 0:59:1.850
Bob Butler (Guest)
Or alternatively, and I'm figuring out the top of my head here, which is dangerous, but you know the members of the of the organization that is collecting the reimbursements might vote to say hey, save them.
0:59:32.450 --> 0:59:36.460
Breton, Mary B
For instance, reporting municipalities could opt in and say, “have my reimbursement go to this other entity”?
0:59:42.380 --> 0:59:44.50
Bob Butler (Guest)
Sure. That's one way of doing it.
0:59:50.720 --> 0:59:56.930
Breton, Mary B
OK. So if Shelby got her clarifying question answered, is that the case, Shelby?
0:59:57.100 --> 0:59:58.250
Shelby Wright
Yes, thank you.
0:59:57.980 --> 1:0:8.380
Breton, Mary B
We have one more question for Bob and Tony in House and then Shelby, I'm gonna have you present your prepared comments.
1:0:8.420 --> 1:0:9.780
Shelby Wright
OK, I'll hang out.
1:0:9.300 --> 1:0:9.870
Breton, Mary B
OK.
1:0:11.60 --> 1:0:15.500
Breton, Mary B
Thank you for everything, again. I’m Laura Berry from the town of Bar Harbor. I'm curious just in terms of building off of the question or the concern about certified scales, whether you all envision that Municipal Waste Solutions, or in the future when such a regional facility is open and is collecting mixed MSW, so everything altogether whether the regional processing facility would be the ones conducting, say, waste audits for each community that's participating or if that's something that still would need to happen municipality by municipality, just in terms of supporting those municipalities that are participating in those regional partnerships.
1:0:49.910 --> 1:1:5.620
Breton, Mary B
If we don't have scales, for example in Bar Harbor we don't, then whether we have those data reporting requirements, are you envisioning those happening all at the processing facility or would still the municipalities have to do some of that data collection as well?
1:1:9.760 --> 1:1:17.670
Tony Smith
The easy way out is to say work together in some other way, but everything in the facility will be weighed and everything coming out of the facility will be weighed.
1:1:19.330 --> 1:1:26.370
Tony Smith
So we have what's coming and what's going, that's to be determined. This is somewhat new to me and I'm appreciative of being able to sit here and listen to the folks, but that would be to be determined.
1:1:36.150 --> 1:1:40.80
Tony Smith
We would be best set up, based on what I know now, with the scales weighing in and then weighing out the way it was done when the facility was open and successfully operating until the folks ran out of money to make a profit, improvements and management reasons.
1:2:5.270 --> 1:2:12.880
Tony Smith
What was your first name again, please?
1:2:19.420 --> 1:2:21.310
Tony Smith
Laura. OK, thanks. There are alot of earthwork contractors, concrete companies, that have certified scales for their own use, and our recyclables are weighed out at a concrete plant at $10 a whack, and we have that show up on the invoices.
1:2:53.460 --> 1:3:0.930
Breton, Mary B
OK, we don't have any other questions for Bob or Tony. Thank you so much. We've received your comments already.
1:3:3.160 --> 1:3:10.550
Breton, Mary B
So we're going to go ahead and give the floor to Shelby and have her share prepared comments on behalf of Casella.
1:3:12.420 --> 1:3:24.920
Shelby Wright
Thank you very much. My name is Shelby Wright. I'm the Eastern region manager of engagement for Casella Waste Systems. And thank you for the opportunity to provide my verbal comments today. We will be submitting written comments after the fact.
1:3:26.60 --> 1:3:54.850
Shelby Wright
Casella, as you know, is invested in the Northeast recycling infrastructure for decades, including single stream collection, processing and sorting systems, which serve thousands of municipalities and business businesses and recover hundreds of thousands of tons per year of recyclable materials. We always have and continue to believe that the best way to improve recycling outcomes is through continued investment in existing infrastructure, better public outreach and education, and the strengthening of the markets for recycled commodities.
1:3:55.560 --> 1:4:4.510
Shelby Wright
I'm on the topic of municipal reimbursements as described in the background information prepared by the department that we have reviewed, we offer the following observations.
1:4:5.680 --> 1:4:34.670
Shelby Wright
Casella services several municipalities within Maine under a variety of service agreements ranging from marketing and commodities collected at municipally owned transfer stations to full residential curbside collection and processing contracts for municipal solid waste and recycling our invoices to municipal customers often list total costs and total times we could likely develop a simple year in summary format, including these annualized numbers to support the reporting needs of our customers.
1:4:35.150 --> 1:5:5.920
Shelby Wright
And is noted in our previous testimony, specific quantitative data beyond total tonnage and total cost is not consistently available today and would require detailed analysis such as manual material audits to determine on an ongoing basis. We do believe that much of the information required to calculate municipal reimbursements is contained in existing documents, specifically, annual recycling facility reports, invoices for solid waste and recycling services.
1:5:6.90 --> 1:5:22.510
Shelby Wright
And publicly available commodity indexes, given the broad stroke of this EPR program, the department should seek to leverage existing information and simplify all reporting requirements as much as possible to enable participation and to minimize costs.
1:5:24.300 --> 1:5:37.400
Shelby Wright
Lastly, to help all of us better understand this reimbursement program, we would like to pose a few questions of our own. What percent of the municipal recycling stream does the apartment believe consists of covered packaging?
1:5:38.310 --> 1:5:44.750
Shelby Wright
And what percent of the municipal solid waste disposal string does the department believe is covered packaging?
1:5:45.640 --> 1:5:52.140
Shelby Wright
And should municipalities assume that they're reimbursement calculations will reflect those percentages?
1:5:54.880 --> 1:5:58.610
Shelby Wright
And there was over my final questions and those that concludes my comments.
1:5:59.970 --> 1:6:0.980
Shelby Wright
I'll take questions.
1:6:2.280 --> 1:6:5.950
Breton, Mary B
OK. Thank you. Yep. I think Tony has one for you.
1:6:11.790 --> 1:6:30.900
Tony Smith
Actually it's on the data collection, my preference. This is a brand new program. I don't think we need to recreate the wheel, but my preference would be to develop a new data collection strategy moving forward rather than relying on past information.
1:6:33.310 --> 1:6:34.710
Shelby Wright
Well, it would be the current.
1:6:33.140 --> 1:6:47.790
Tony Smith
The past information worked for what it was, but if the SO's charged with putting together software package, that simplifies things for the reporting and the totaling that would be my preference and my suggestion.
1:6:58.720 --> 1:7:1.900
Breton, Mary B
OK, we don't have any questions for you in the room, and I don't see any other hands up on the web. So thank you. Yes, please send your comment.
1:7:11.210 --> 1:7:24.160
Shelby Wright
Could I ask then Elena or yourself Jessica, to the list of my questions and what percent of municipal recycling stream does the department believe consists of covered packaging for the EPR for packaging law. Obviously, there are a lot of things in the stream that are not packaging materials.
1:7:34.450 --> 1:7:47.860
Breton, Mary B
Yeah, I don't think we do have good data on that. I think EPA tried and got something like I think they want to say 30 to 40% of the full stream, but no, we don't have any idea what those percentages are.
1:7:48.500 --> 1:7:55.400
Shelby Wright
So then should the municipalities assume that they're reimbursement is going to be a calculation based on like 33% of their costs then?
1:7:56.440 --> 1:7:59.490
Breton, Mary B
Well, I think that the 33 is the full stream MSW versus what's in a recycling stream. What goes to recycling, I think is higher.
1:8:12.620 --> 1:8:20.200
Breton, Mary B
But yes, the municipalities wouldn't be reimbursed for material that's not covered packaging.
1:8:21.60 --> 1:8:33.290
Shelby Wright
So for example, if uh Municipality spent $1,000,000 a year on their program costs, then they could expect potentially 1/3 of that to be reimbursed through the EPR program for packaging?
1:8:35.310 --> 1:8:39.20
Breton, Mary B
And if the $1,000,000 was for their full cost, I don't even dare to say. Well, I mean, so you've got 33% of the total, but that's not necessarily cost.
1:8:52.690 --> 1:8:58.680
Breton, Mary B
We don't have the data broken down like. One of the things we're going to try and do is with the Swiffer grants is have money to actually have a waste audit done.
1:9:10.100 --> 1:9:10.900
Shelby Wright
That's excellent.
1:9:10.160 --> 1:9:13.30
Breton, Mary B
You’re first, if we're successful in getting the money.
1:9:14.190 --> 1:9:18.110
Breton, Mary B
So that should give us better data for that type of determination, but as of right now, we don't have any specific percentages. We have the general 30 to 40%, but that doesn't necessarily translate into that percentage of cost. 
1:9:43.590 --> 1:9:53.670
Breton, Mary B
And we've gotten that comment a whole bunch of times. “How much can a municipality if you municipality we're going to start a recycling program how much can they expect to get?”
1:9:54.330 --> 1:10:1.80
Breton, Mary B
And I don't think we have anything to say on that at this point, but we are aware that would be useful. We're not there yet.
1:9:59.390 --> 1:10:9.410
Shelby Wright
I just wanted to be clear because it sounds a lot. Sometimes when I listen to the municipal questions that they're expecting 100% reimbursement for all of their costs for municipal solid waste management, and I just wanted to be clear that that's not what this program does.
1:10:14.690 --> 1:10:16.800
Breton, Mary B
Correct. That's not what this program does.
1:10:21.820 --> 1:10:29.0
Breton, Mary B
OK, so we have a few more follow up questions. Tony, you are a presenter already, so if you want to speak.
1:10:32.430 --> 1:10:39.260
Tony Smith
Going to Shelby's comments, this might be a case one I agree with the fellow off to my right.
1:10:40.500 --> 1:11:5.810
Tony Smith
A waste audit needs to be done and if that means tearing open bags, dumping them on the floor, dumping out pack of trucks, sorting, pawing through it with a set of scales overtime. That's one way to do it. I suggested I would help out with that at a recent meeting and everybody else said Ohh, go for it. But that that's one way to do it and I still would help with that. This might be a case going full circle where the old data.
1:11:13.340 --> 1:11:20.290
Tony Smith
Might be useful in addition to do a hands on the ground audit of the waste stream.
1:11:22.990 --> 1:11:38.360
Tony Smith
I'm still an advocate moving forward with new software, but that might the old data plus a hands on review of the trash might work well together to give us that number. Shelby is wondering about, but I agree with you folks, I wouldn't agree to any number today.
1:11:40.700 --> 1:11:41.20
Breton, Mary B
OK.
1:11:40.330 --> 1:11:52.210
Tony Smith
People tend to latch on and I'm not referring this to Shelby. I've worked with Shelby at Fiber Right when she was there, and people tend to latch on the numbers as if they were gospel.
1:11:53.940 --> 1:12:0.450
Shelby Wright
No, absolutely. I was just wondering if there was a guidepost established?
1:12:1.680 --> 1:12:17.30
Shelby Wright
And I can understand completely why there has not been and I have advocated from the beginning of this testimony in the legislature and out for an independent third party audit to make sure the program gets started on the right foot with the right calculations. So we are in agreement and Tony.
1:12:19.500 --> 1:12:20.630
Tony Smith
I felt the earth shift.
1:12:21.680 --> 1:12:23.70
Shelby Wright
Now imagine that.
1:12:25.580 --> 1:12:30.250
Breton, Mary B
Jay may have a follow up question for you, Shelby. We're making you a presenter, Jay.
1:12:32.630 --> 1:13:2.300
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
Thanks. I was just reminded that when this was going through the rulemaking process, NRCM provided some great information to municipalities and on their website. The fact that Maine is the first state to take this on means we can't look to other states on how their methodology or models or rules that are put together. But in our ICM did point out that there are other countries, European and in North America, that already have some program in place to do this. So my suggestion would be to maybe reach out to our neighbors, to the north or any others that may have already wrestled with this topic and have sort of worked out those details.
1:13:20.780 --> 1:13:21.210
Jay Reynolds (Guest)
Thank you.
1:13:24.340 --> 1:13:25.630
Breton, Mary B
Thanks. Thank you.
1:13:35.710 --> 1:13:36.980
Tony Smith
I'm sorry, but I'd be careful with using Canada or European countries and breakdown a waste that there's different lifestyles.
1:13:48.870 --> 1:13:58.520
Tony Smith
Different economics in those countries and quite familiar with Canada having moved from there in 63, but continually returning. Different thought processes maybe not so much in Canada, but in the European countries compared to the way that we typically think these days in the states.
1:14:12.340 --> 1:14:12.770
Tony Smith
Thank you.
1:14:15.370 --> 1:14:16.120
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
1:14:19.420 --> 1:14:21.530
Breton, Mary B
OK, I'm going to go ahead and give the floor to Andy Hackman.
1:14:56.480 --> 1:15:10.140
Breton, Mary B
Andy Hackman on behalf of AMERIPEN. AMPIPEN is the association represents the entire packaging supply chain from materials to consumer goods to waste management organizations as well. I appreciate the opportunity to make comment today.
1:15:14.750 --> 1:15:43.800
Breton, Mary B
We obviously are still somewhat responding in a vacuum, looking at the background documents and not having a regulation in place to provide very specific comments in terms of issues. The first point I'm going to hit off though that I didn't think I was going to have to cover today was with regard to disposal costs. I'll remind stakeholders that were involved in the legislative process. LD 1541 was introduced with language specifically in section 10 that included disposal costs for packaging materials.
1:15:44.10 --> 1:16:14.230
Breton, Mary B
That was removed during the legislative process, clearly showing legislative intent that that activity is not going to be funded under the program. The language that remains in section 10, very specifically. That includes the three following activities, collection, transportation and processing of packaging materials. Those are the activities that are covered under this law. AMERIPEN would not support as we advocated during the legislative process, we felt like stakeholders were involved and the amendments that took place. I can't remember if they were during the committee process or on the floor.
1:16:14.450 --> 1:16:44.140
Breton, Mary B
But those amendments were taken during the legislative process, so we have a strong problem with disposal cost being included for covered materials. The goal here is to move things up the solid waste hierarchy. We all know that landfilling, at least the last time I checked and disposal costs, is the cheapest option for managing these materials. We want to move things up the process and of the hierarchy as well. We completely agree. That's why we have a clear for that language and we thought we were being intellectually honest to say we want to move and materials up the hierarchy.
1:16:44.560 --> 1:17:16.10
Breton, Mary B
And we would support activities and reimbursement rates that might create greater incentives to move those materials up the hierarchy. We will not support this global cost being an outcome we could have municipalities that don't offer recycling right now collect the least amount of recycle material just to qualify for the program and send as much as they can to disposal in order to claim and get funding underneath this program. So that is a grave concern of ours and that's because Maines law is different than the three other EPR laws that have passed. It's not extended producer responsibility.
1:17:16.190 --> 1:17:47.780
Breton, Mary B
This is a stewardship law, and the other programs have producers more connected to the program. They don't envy the role of the department has in helping create this program and write significant roles because in the other states, the stewardship organization with the producers involved, net organization are much more involved in understanding the data, providing better data. And there's a reiterative dialogue. We don't believe that that's exactly what's going to happen here but understand that's how the law is it drafted. So, accountability is key and having the municipal reimbursement system work well and provide good data is critical as it has already been highlighted, I think, through one of the earlier comments.
1:17:58.350 --> 1:18:28.120
Breton, Mary B
This law covers covered packaging material. We have great concern from the producer's perspective that there will be a subsidization that occurs if we don't use good data. If the regulations don't specifically call out what we are reimbursing for covered packaging material, things like magazines and newspapers, and recyclable products like cups and bowls, and to the future are going to be recyclable, but they are not a cover material under this law and there's strong concern.
1:18:28.320 --> 1:18:59.550
Breton, Mary B
That is because there isn't that accountability between the producers and the producer responsibility organization and the municipalities, in this case. Having that feedback loop that there would not be the ability to understand what's really a covered material and quite frankly, we're concerned that numbers we plowed into packaging material without data and that we would end up subsidizing materials that are not covered material under the law. 
1:18:59.710 --> 1:19:29.760
Breton, Mary B
So there were some questions and in the background documents related to infrastructure and infrastructure might be prorated how overhead costs might be included in the municipal reimbursement rate. Want to call that section 11 deals with infrastructure and education. Specifically, it's a separate section. During the legislation, there was discussion around how are we going to invest in infrastructure. Is it going to be plowed into the reimbursement rate? We would argue that because the pro or the so has to plan for a separate infrastructure budget that we can't, we should not be planning costs into this this per ton reimbursement rate because there is this separate infrastructure and education budget. So if there is a desire to have those activities funded, they should be funded through section 11 and that specific area that deals with those activities and with infrastructure, like that of a new scale needs to be purchased. That's something that that that municipality could come to the SO for. The department has to approve as I read the law that outlay or the grant to that community. But that's the place for those infrastructure investments to have costs addressed as through that section of the law, not through the reimbursement. Otherwise again, we end up with padding in this municipal reimbursement section where there is a different budget. Quite frankly, if you think about the so having two buckets of money, one for reimbursements and one for infrastructure and education investment that's an easier thing to accomplish. And thinking about it from the producer's perspective, we've got to set an annual budget. So doing that in two places is easier than trying to assume that the reimbursement rate is going to cover everything because it's going to fluctuate. 
1:20:34.20 --> 1:21:7.630
Breton, Mary B
Programs and things like, I think loan payments were mentioned in there, again those are related to infrastructure investments. Third Point, I'd like to make maybe third or fourth because disposal wasn't actually on my initial points as revenue. Where is the discussion of revenue? We strongly believe that revenue from the materials that are sold needs to be included and recognized in the median cost per ton with the reimbursement rate. So didn't see that in the background documents. We believe it's something that's obviously happening. 
1:21:7.710 --> 1:21:39.650
Breton, Mary B
Municipalities are receiving revenue on certain materials we understand, Others, they're not receiving revenue, but that should be part of the evaluation of municipal reimbursement rates. There was, I think, a comment in the background document related to default rates in terms of assuming certain amounts of materials end up being recyclable, we've got some real question about how those would be established and whether or not those are reliable enough in terms of using those as default rates for, I think reimbursement in that section. And I think it would be good for us before the rule was finalized on this to.
1:21:39.770 --> 1:22:5.180
Breton, Mary B
The law in both the background documents talk about miserable reporting. I think it's already been alluded to that might be a software solution. I think we'd like to understand the data points that the department is going to ask for and require in terms of reimbursement so that we can have an understanding as what data is going to be collected before we finalize this rule.
1:22:5.950 --> 1:22:18.720
Breton, Mary B
I think it would be helpful for us all to know what the data obligations are going to be and sort of come to agreement through this process before rules get finalized and then we get farther down the line, and we realize there's not agreement on what data should be collected. We've got everybody's attention now. And why not use it again? My name is Amy Hackman. Appreciate the opportunity, and maybe there'll be some questions.
1:22:33.220 --> 1:22:34.130
Tony Smith
Andy, you mentioned you've you folks were in favor of not paying for disposal and you mentioned magazines. How does how do magazines come into play when we're talking packaging?
1:22:49.370 --> 1:22:56.960
Breton, Mary B
They don't. We have one. We're not in favor of disposal, just clarifying. If I heard you right, Tony, magazines are not a cover product.
1:23:1.920 --> 1:23:17.360
Breton, Mary B
Our concern is that if it's just the data that is reported per ton, this is what we recycled and you were reimbursed for everything. Magazines are not a covered product are not a covered packaging material. So that tonnage would get paid for by a producer.
1:23:16.670 --> 1:23:30.120
Tony Smith
And when you were explaining how I think it is clear to me you get reimbursed for recyclable materials and then somewhere, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you get reimbursement for contaminated packaging or disposal costs of that, is that what you meant?
1:23:47.200 --> 1:23:57.140
Breton, Mary B
Yeah, so contamination is included and remediation of contamination, that would be a processing activity, right. So that would be reimbursable, but I think you may have heard other packaging material contamination is different than we're sending 5 tons to disposal and it's packaging material, we want to be reimbursed for that; if it's just going straight to the landfill, no.
1:23:59.880 --> 1:24:28.0
Breton, Mary B
But if it's processed at recycling facility and there is contamination that's processed out, that would be a legitimate cost. So we're not saying things that end up in landfill coming out of a recycling facility may not be covered, but sending recyclables to disposal is not something we would agree to cover.
1:24:28.480 --> 1:24:29.600
Tony Smith
But if effort went into pulling those contaminated packaging recyclables out of the waste stream. Then it was decided that they were contaminated, I would like to see some type of reimbursement to cover the efforts that were made to pull those materials out. Now, I'm not looking at this as somebody, you know trust me type thing, but we tried and I think that there should be a maybe a sliding scale or maybe not the full tipping fee per ton but something some type of reimbursement for the efforts made by these people that are going to be involved with this.
1:25:9.360 --> 1:25:12.270
Tony Smith
I need some clarification too. You said that the revenue that is received by a recycling facility should be included in the reimbursement formula?
1:25:23.220 --> 1:25:25.490
Breton, Mary B
Yeah, if you're making aluminum cans, not beverage obviously because beverage is exempt, but if other material, other packaged covered materials are included in the program and you're making $1000 on a ton of recyclable aluminum cans.
1:25:56.700 --> 1:25:56.950
Tony Smith
Yep.
1:25:50.610 --> 1:26:16.880
Breton, Mary B
That revenue, as I understand it, would be annually adjusted for the cost or the reimbursement rate. So if on an annual average you're making $1000 on a ton or $100, whatever, if that revenue and that's how it's done in the other four states that have EPR laws is revenue is accounted for that we're going to use municipal reimbursement as our method and obviously Maine’s law uses municipal reimbursement.
1:26:16.380 --> 1:26:36.480
Tony Smith
I can't agree with that, that's the way a facility is recycling and maybe I got you wrong, but that's how they make revenue to keep themselves in business to make improvements to the technology improvements to their machinery, pay the employees change with time with inflation.
1:26:37.250 --> 1:26:44.430
Tony Smith
I really don't see why the revenue from the sale of materials should be involved in the formula.
1:26:44.960 --> 1:27:17.190
Breton, Mary B
Well, I mean the producers are now going to pay for that, that material, right? It's going to bring all of that material that cover material to a 0 cost or if you’re running an incredibly efficient program, you might turn a profit off the producer payments, right? So in the same sense that really efficient programs might make money off their recycling program under this image of law, the same thing should have the median cost per ton should also account for the fact that hopefully again by using recycled content from the producer's perspective, we drive up the value of those materials.
1:27:24.770 --> 1:27:28.930
Breton, Mary B
That needs to be accounted for in the median cost for reimbursement.
1:27:28.200 --> 1:27:33.30
Tony Smith
No, no, I disagree wholeheartedly, and four other states may do it that way, but this is Maine and we don't have to follow suit and get in line and do it that way. There's a lot more work that needs to go into this, but right now on the surface, I'd have to say I disagree with that.
1:27:49.720 --> 1:27:58.690
Breton, Mary B 
Yeah, that's fine. I think we're just looking for clarifying questions at this point, but we can carry out the discussion more so on the 24th.
1:27:58.920 --> 1:27:59.570
Tony Smith
Thank you.
1:28:0.990 --> 1:28:2.90
Tony Smith
Yeah, for the clarification.
1:27:58.940 --> 1:28:5.400
Breton, Mary B
Sarah Nichols probably has a clarifying question for you, Andy.
1:28:13.130 --> 1:28:19.980
Sarah Nichols
OK, I think I'm back on. Thanks for your comments, Andy. I wish I was there a person.
1:28:21.210 --> 1:28:28.20
Sarah Nichols
So I guess I have three questions. So I'll try to be discreet with asking those. 
1:28:28.830 --> 1:28:36.400
Sarah Nichols
The first is I noted that you brought up, you know, the magazines and newspapers and the and the packaging like products being an issue.
1:28:36.740 --> 1:28:45.980
Sarah Nichols
Would AMERIPEN support eventually adding those materials to the program so that they are covered as well?
1:28:47.330 --> 1:28:51.470
Breton, Mary B
Well, this isn't a legislative format. That would have to be done by legislation. 
1:28:50.790 --> 1:28:58.110
Sarah Nichols
Why would you support something like that if there were legislation or I'm just asking you, is this something that that you would support?
1:29:11.650 --> 1:29:18.640
Breton, Mary B
I'd have to look at it. I mean, we're not negotiating legislation here.
1:29:18.190 --> 1:29:31.930
Sarah Nichols
Well, I just asking you a theoretical question. Do you think any EPR program like this would be more effective and fair and efficient if all of the materials that were in the in the blue bins, let's say were included in it, eventually?
1:29:34.970 --> 1:29:38.640
Sarah Nichols
You guys have never discussed this before?
1:29:32.490 --> 1:29:39.180
Breton, Mary B
I don't know. I have to talk to our membership. 
1:29:39.770 --> 1:29:43.470
Sarah Nichols
And I guess I got two other questions.
1:29:44.870 --> 1:29:55.840
Sarah Nichols
So you know, I'm as a as a waste nerd. I'm really, really excited about all the data that's going to come out of this program. And you talked about that quite a bit.
1:29:57.280 --> 1:30:15.560
Sarah Nichols
I feel like the data is probably transparent and all the methods to get the data are going to be part of the reason why I like that the public process of this and the department of the government entity who does not have a financial skin in the game to be kind of helping get this data.
1:30:16.970 --> 1:30:38.380
Sarah Nichols
But I feel like we're trying to do through the rulemaking is develop the process to get the good data. And I feel like when I heard is already a criticism of how that might be done and kind of seeding doubts in the data up front. And I guess I was just hoping you could turn that into more of like a solutions-based criticism like, ‘’we're concerned about this specific thing, how might we make that sure that specific thing doesn't happen?’’
1:30:38.750 --> 1:30:58.120
Sarah Nichols
I know that in other EPR programs the producers have a little bit more control over the entire system and control over that data. And I think that that's a critical component. I just don't want to have people having seeded doubt in a process that hasn't even been established yet.
1:30:59.410 --> 1:31:2.820
Breton, Mary B
I mean that's a subjective analysis.
1:31:5.920 --> 1:31:21.270
Sarah Nichols
Yeah. I was just wondering if you could eventually turn those concerns about the data into solutions on how we might prevent, you know, I want to get really good data, even if it's bad or good or whatever it might be. I just want, you know, fix to seek the truth out.
1:31:21.410 --> 1:31:40.400
Breton, Mary B
And then Shelby made a good point about the number of 30 to 40% and how nobody's got a lot of faith in that. We need to come up with a better number. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to seek out in the data ahead of the process. I'm offering that the law clearly states that we're covering covered packaging material and not more.
1:31:41.270 --> 1:31:41.610
Sarah Nichols
Right.
1:31:41.130 --> 1:31:46.460
Breton, Mary B
And we need data to make sure that's what the reimbursed municipal reimbursement rate covers.
1:31:48.200 --> 1:31:50.810
Sarah Nichols
Right. I think that's everybody's understanding.
1:31:54.850 --> 1:32:6.220
Sarah Nichols
Alright, then I guess I don't have to get into this last one, but I think it's pretty clear in the statute that the door is open for disposal costs to be covered in this rule making process, so I also disagree with your assessment that that's clear in the statute. I'm looking at it now and it definitely includes the cost of managing packaging material, but it doesn't specify how.
1:32:23.720 --> 1:32:29.670
Breton, Mary B
I disagree on that one because there was disposal costs specifically in the real version bill.
1:32:30.110 --> 1:32:33.760
Sarah Nichols
OK, we can agree to disagree today. Thank you.
1:32:35.230 --> 1:32:38.900
Breton, Mary B
OK. Thank you. And I think, Shelby, might have a question for you too.
1:32:40.560 --> 1:32:42.150
Breton, Mary B
Clarifying questions please.
1:32:49.60 --> 1:32:50.800
Breton, Mary B
Tony, do you have another clarifying question?
1:32:52.690 --> 1:32:54.440
Tony Smith
Ah yes, for Sarah.
1:32:56.800 --> 1:33:5.750
Tony Smith
Sarah, what would be the advantage of pulling magazines and newspapers into this please?
1:33:6.910 --> 1:33:26.370
Sarah Nichols
We could try to do that quickly. A lot of other EPR for packaging programs around the world and the other ones that have passed in the US also include paper, you know, junk mail, magazines, newspapers, what have you in the program too. And we didn't do that here in Maine. We just went for packaging. So I was asking Andy Hackman if he would, you know, support including those here like the other jurisdictions do.
1:33:27.80 --> 1:33:28.60
Tony Smith
OK, I see what you mean.
1:33:30.910 --> 1:33:37.670
Breton, Mary B
If we're going to take jurisdiction so California doesn't include covered materials; it's a mix.
1:33:48.540 --> 1:33:53.650
Breton, Mary B
I don't think that there's any other clarifying questions for you, Andy. Thank you.
1:33:54.730 --> 1:34:0.700
Breton, Mary B
OK, let's keep getting these prepared comments out. Next on the list is Christine Adamowicz.
1:34:7.650 --> 1:34:11.970
Breton, Mary B
If you're in the webinar, just raise your hand, OK? Super.
1:34:23.620 --> 1:34:25.890
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Hi everyone. Can you hear and see me?
1:34:26.710 --> 1:34:27.610
Breton, Mary B
Yes, we can.
1:34:27.910 --> 1:34:56.360
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
OK, great. Thanks for holding this session. My name is Chrissy Adamowicz and I work for the town of Brunswick, so I'll be providing an overview of our comments just really quickly for the town, but I'm going to submit full comments later when we sort of finalized them. I would say that a lot of what has been said from South Portland and NRCM really resonates with us as a municipality.
1:34:57.260 --> 1:35:16.970
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
When we read the statement of our reimbursements, you know the word managing is very clear to us. You know, we manage recycling through recycling and disposal. And then there's the litter like managing is doing all of those things. So it's very clear to us like that it would include disposal or at least that's how we interpret it.
1:35:17.400 --> 1:35:47.620
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
We want to make sure that you know we would advocate for including those costs because you know if our role as a municipality is to collect those packaging materials and then send them on to the next stage of life, which is to the MRF and if they happened to be recycled, then we've done our job as a municipality and we should be reimbursed for doing that job. So you know we have a lot of experience trying to increase recycling rates and decrease disposing rates.
1:35:48.420 --> 1:36:2.190
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
The EPR program gets to those systemic problems that we can't do on our own. So that's why we advocate for it to be included in all of those areas for recycling, disposing and litter too because that is what happens. We just wanted to say that.
1:36:8.520 --> 1:36:32.760
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
We also talked about reporting amongst ourselves and we feel pretty confident that it'll be fairly easy. Our town has all the data that we think that you might need. We think that we could give it to you within an hour and you know I think an hour quarterly or in the first quarter of every year would be a reasonable amount of time for reporting.
1:36:33.220 --> 1:36:40.220
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Late in the first quarter is when we start to get that data for the past year. So that would be a good time for us to do that.
1:36:40.740 --> 1:36:49.420
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Our sort of our final comment too is that, as a municipality, we're dealing with all kinds of emergencies.
1:36:49.540 --> 1:37:19.990
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Housing and heating, just all kinds of emergencies, and so getting reimbursed sooner rather than later is critical because our general fund is always stretched and we're always trying to figure out how to solve these emergencies. And if we can sort of close that gap for recycling, then that would be really ideal for us. We just want to say if the DEP and the state can move up implementation, 2027 is really far out. If you can move up implementation to something like 2025, that would be, in our view, ideal and reasonable, because again, we need those reimbursements as soon as possible. So those are sort of our high level comments, I'll provide written comments to the e-mail address that you guys provided. So thank you.
1:37:35.430 --> 1:37:36.220
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
1:37:39.400 --> 1:37:44.730
Breton, Mary B
Do you have any litter collection activities currently?
1:37:44.290 --> 1:38:7.320
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
So we don't, and I've talked to our volunteers who do it. We have a lot of volunteers doing it, but our public works department doesn't do it. We could potentially create a program and we were just sort of throwing spaghetti at the wall and estimating the time it would take the number of employees and the hours that it would take. You could potentially create a litter cleanup program.
1:38:7.430 --> 1:38:37.600
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Maybe about $25,000 a year? Last year, we budgeted $130,000 to recycle and $285,000 to dispose of waste. We know that there's packaging material in our disposal stream and that could be for various reasons that could be the cause; it looks and feels like it should go in the trash. Maybe it shouldn't go in there, but it's confusing consumers or it's not readily recyclable. We've had an active sustainability education side of it and really try to get the community to understand the differences of recycling. But we, you know, it's one of those systemic problems. So that's why we feel like we should be covered for those costs.
1:38:53.70 --> 1:39:19.370
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Those costs have not returned to zero. They were, you know, once a long time ago a neutral cost for us where we could get back costs through what we could sell for those materials and make that budget line 0. But it hasn't been in several years, pre-pandemic events. It hasn't always been that way, but it feels like this is the new normal. And so that's why we're so happy that EPR is on the books.
1:39:22.330 --> 1:39:27.560
Breton, Mary B
Just out of curiosity, is that $130, 000 cost for recycling that you gave earlier, is that net cost?
1:39:28.550 --> 1:39:29.290
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
That's our current cost. That includes any revenue coming from sales.
1:39:37.250 --> 1:39:41.690
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
That's our current, that's what we budgeted. That's for our current fiscal year budget for it.
1:39:43.70 --> 1:39:43.600
Breton, Mary B
OK.
1:39:42.800 --> 1:39:47.390
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
So yeah, I could follow up with our public works director to figure out. For instance, what the revenue is of it. But I know that's what we've set aside to support the recycling program.
1:39:59.170 --> 1:39:59.940
Breton, Mary B
OK. Thank you.
1:40:0.270 --> 1:40:0.560
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Yeah.
1:40:6.390 --> 1:40:12.700
Breton, Mary B
OK, I don't see any other hands up for clarifying questions to your comments, Chrissy. So thank you. We're going to move on.
1:40:13.530 --> 1:40:14.0
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Thank you.
1:40:15.480 --> 1:40:17.170
Breton, Mary B
Actually, we got Lynne Palmer that might have a question for you.
1:40:19.800 --> 1:40:20.120
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Sure.
1:40:26.890 --> 1:40:27.330
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Hi.
1:40:26.420 --> 1:40:27.600
Palmer, Lynne
Hi, can you hear me?
1:40:28.640 --> 1:40:29.100
Breton, Mary B
Yes.
1:40:29.830 --> 1:40:33.310
Palmer, Lynne
Yes. So I just have a clarifying question about connecting reimbursement from a recycling program to a general fund that could direct the funds to something that isn't related to recycling is that what you were implying?
1:40:47.570 --> 1:41:0.210
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
Well, we're spending $130,000 out of our general fund to pay for recycling. So if that cost goes away, then that money from our general fund could be used somewhere else.
1:41:2.330 --> 1:41:3.620
Palmer, Lynne
Understood. Just hoping that the system doesn't become a revenue stream that goes beyond working the recycling system and improving the recycling system, but paying for other things that aren't related to recycling.
1:41:17.660 --> 1:41:33.740
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
No, I just meant that that that budget line item would disappear, or it wouldn't disappear, but it would change so that we wouldn't have to put that money there. I understand that yes, the money that any sort of surplus money would have to go back into the program.
1:41:34.830 --> 1:41:35.860
Palmer, Lynne
OK. Thank you.
1:41:42.270 --> 1:41:43.100
Breton, Mary B
Thanks, Chrissy.
1:41:44.20 --> 1:41:44.790
Chrissy Adamowicz (Guest)
OK. Thank you.
1:41:46.230 --> 1:41:48.630
Breton, Mary B
OK, for our next speaker, we have Mark Draper.

1:42:8.450 --> 1:42:10.140
Mark Draper (Guest)
Hey folks, can you hear me?
1:42:11.240 --> 1:42:12.0
Breton, Mary B
OK. Yeah.
1:42:12.780 --> 1:42:26.630
Mark Draper (Guest)
Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. I really appreciate it. I've always felt that the department stakeholder approach is a good one and I appreciate the opportunity and the efforts that you're undertaking here.
1:42:27.690 --> 1:42:51.170
Mark Draper (Guest)
I'm going to take just a couple of minutes in the interest of brevity and maybe explain who I am and who I work for. My name is Mark Draper. I'm the solid waste director for Aroostook Waste Solutions, AWS for short. Sounds like someone to the South is liking our name and mimicking it, and certainly think that's pretty cool that someone else thinks our name is interesting.
1:42:59.330 --> 1:43:29.760
Mark Draper (Guest)
AWS is a not-for-profit corporation that's owned by 4 municipalities in Aroostook County. We operate under an interlocal agreement amongst those communities, and we have an integrated system that includes 2 small landfills and a recycling program. We service in addition to the four owner municipalities, some 40 other communities in Aroostook County for disposal in our landfills and we also service about 16 communities with a drop off recycling program.
1:43:36.520 --> 1:43:44.900
Mark Draper (Guest)
So the recycling program is kind of a subset of the of the disposal facility and we do not charge for that recycling program. Any costs associated with that essentially get built into our overall budget, which is primarily supported by tipping fees at the landfill. So in a sense, the landfills are subsidizing our recycling program.
1:44:6.510 --> 1:44:35.310
Mark Draper (Guest)
So I really just kind of wanted to focus on a couple of the questions or a few of the questions that the department put forth for us to take a look at. I didn't address all of them, but I did think a couple of them were pertinent. One of those was, are there any instances of municipal cooperation not addressed by the language above? Obviously, selfishly, I'm looking at that from the perspective of our organization. And if I understand it correctly, when organization such as AWS can receive reimbursement on behalf of the individual municipalities for which we provide the service, and if that is true, then I think certainly from our perspective our circumstance is addressed. That's not true then probably we need to have some more discussion about that.
1:44:56.280 --> 1:45:4.20
Mark Draper (Guest)
One of the other questions was when reporting municipal cost for recycling, what costs might be overlooked?
1:45:4.640 --> 1:45:31.670
Mark Draper (Guest)
Perhaps administrative type costs could be potentially overlooked. I don't think they’re significant, but there is effort in you know running these programs and booking loads, tracking loads, collecting payment things of that nature. So there is some of that more specifically I think it might be significant, but I don't know how many other entities or municipalities offer something like this. 
1:45:32.940 --> 1:46:2.730
Mark Draper (Guest)
In our case, we have a revenue sharing program that we offer as a financial incentive for folks to recycle with us. That's specific to cardboard and for to the extent that corrugated cardboard is a package may be included in this program, we certainly consider that as a cost. That's how we recorded in our budget and the way it works is we simply return 50% of the revenue that we receive from the sale of cardboard to people who bring it to us, like commercial haulers or other large generators. So just something to think about as a potential cost and whether or not that should be reimbursed or not.
1:46:15.70 --> 1:46:39.330
Mark Draper (Guest)
A couple of folks have mentioned when would reports be due and when would work best? I think I'm kind of in in sync with some of the others and I would think, from my perspective, February, March time frame, that first quarter of the year, typically when we're doing all of our annual reports, would be good. So as long as it's not January 15th, I think anytime in that first quarter or later first quarter works.
1:46:41.130 --> 1:47:11.300
Mark Draper (Guest)
One of the questions you asked was to what extent are time studies needed or appropriate to better allocate costs? And I think initially such studies are going to be very necessary, and they should be a primary task, perhaps for the for the SO. Consistent terminology, consistent methodology for determining costs will be essential to establish credibility and fairness in this process for all the participants. 
1:47:11.590 --> 1:47:24.640
Mark Draper (Guest)
So I think once that initial effort is complete, it probably becomes much less of an effort, but certainly would expect that that would be front loaded task for the SO. After that, fill in the blanks or some certification that nothing has changed over the course of the last year.
1:47:34.110 --> 1:47:50.810
Mark Draper (Guest)
You asked about what characteristics might be considered when defining groups of municipalities as similar for the purposes of ensuring reimbursement equity. You know, there's obviously the ones of demographics, population, population density, things of that nature.
1:47:51.580 --> 1:48:16.730
Mark Draper (Guest)
I would expect that perhaps some sort of level of service consideration be given there. Do you have a drop off program like ours, or do you have curbside collection, or how or what level of service are you offering? Typically, the higher level of service, the higher cost. I can envision some sort of matrix that we you go over 3 columns down 4 rows and you find out kind of where you are in the mix of that whole thing?
1:48:21.70 --> 1:48:51.50
Mark Draper (Guest)
And I'm skipping over some of these, which I will include in my written comments. But just in the interest of time, I'm going to get move along. So one of the things I did mention, one of the questions you had, are there issues related to the reimbursements that we have not already addressed? And I guess that's kind of the tough one at this point. You know, you don't know what you don't know. We're all trying to wrap our heads around all the how this is going to work. Certainly I hope and expect that this collaborative process will continue and you know any proposals that are drafted by the department can be shared with maybe some more details that folks can respond to.
1:48:59.270 --> 1:49:20.910
Mark Draper (Guest)
I'm and I see Jim Guerra in the room. He's heard me say this before. It's not necessarily my saying, but I love it, which is don't let best be the enemy of better. You know, we're trying to find a system here that'll work and is fair. And, you know, I think that should be the focus of this. 
1:49:21.630 --> 1:49:52.40
Mark Draper (Guest)
The only other thing I wanted to add was there's been some debate as to what the statute says or doesn't say or allow or doesn't allow. We've got some time here that perhaps and I don't know if we ever want to open that can of worms, but if there's certainly something that is not working within the statute, there may be an opportunity to identify those, at least as you're going forward and perhaps the legislature can address those. And again, I am not suggesting we open that can of worms, but if there's some mutual agreement on that.
1:49:54.340 --> 1:50:4.250
Mark Draper (Guest)
Now is the time to try to at least put those on a list somewhere and perhaps address them as we as we go forward. We've got a few years still before this is going to be rolled out.
1:50:5.280 --> 1:50:20.790
Mark Draper (Guest)
Last thing I'll say is my final comment. I like Sarah's comment that no municipality left behind; thumbs up to that. I think that's a that's the attitude that I would share and hope that we can make this thing work so we can keep these programs running.
1:50:21.800 --> 1:50:26.30
Mark Draper (Guest)
And with that, I'm going to stop. Thank you again for the opportunity.
1:50:28.230 --> 1:50:32.360
Breton, Mary B
Thank you. Mark, please be sure to send us your comments.
1:50:33.270 --> 1:50:35.200
Breton, Mary B
A quick question, Mark, if you don't mind.
1:50:35.60 --> 1:50:35.380
Mark Draper (Guest)
Sure.
1:50:37.350 --> 1:50:53.260
Breton, Mary B
You might not have the answer to this, but I just want to clarify. Under the term municipality, city, town, county, township, village, plantation, a refuse disposal district under Chapter 17 or regional association.
Do you know by any chance know if a AWS is either a refuse disposal district or a regional association?
1:51:1.570 --> 1:51:12.220
Mark Draper (Guest)
I would have to look, Elena. I think we fall under the Refuse disposal district. But I would have to confirm that with the specific statutes to see.
1:51:13.570 --> 1:51:22.850
Mark Draper (Guest)
That that question came up several years ago with relation to participating with the Maine Bond Bank, and I remember talking about it, but I would have to confirm that. So I don't know today.
1:51:23.970 --> 1:51:26.860
Breton, Mary B
OK, thanks. I just thought I'd checked. I didn't expect you to.
1:51:26.250 --> 1:51:30.560
Mark Draper (Guest)
I'll take a look at that.
1:51:32.610 --> 1:51:33.50
Breton, Mary B
Thanks.
1:51:36.930 --> 1:51:48.760
Breton, Mary B
We’ll go ahead and move on to the next speaker.
1:51:58.340 --> 1:52:4.700
Breton, Mary B
John Salvador, if you're in the meeting, can you raise your hand?
1:52:25.980 --> 1:52:26.550
Breton, Mary B
No.
1:52:27.670 --> 1:52:38.670
Breton, Mary B
What about RPM Eco Chris Piche, are you with us? Or, Dominic Payette?
1:53:21.360 --> 1:53:26.450
Chris Piché
Here we go. Hi, everyone. This is Chris from RPM code. Thank you for having this session.
1:53:27.690 --> 1:53:42.980
Chris Piché
I'm not going to comment verbally, but we did put everything by writing regarding all the previous session and again we are we here to talk and we will come to everyone that would like to chat about it. Thank you everyone.
1:53:43.780 --> 1:53:47.690
Breton, Mary B
OK, thank you. Yes, we do have your comments and they've been shared, and they are accessible on the program's website. Thank you for your continued participation. Next up, Curtis Picard.
1:54:10.390 --> 1:54:11.100
Breton, Mary B
Alright, there it is.
1:54:22.650 --> 1:54:23.810
Curtis Picard (Guest)
Hey there. Good afternoon.
1:54:24.380 --> 1:54:25.160
Breton, Mary B
Good afternoon.
1:54:26.310 --> 1:54:55.160
Curtis Picard (Guest)
I originally hadn't planned to provide some comments. I think early on when I registered for this, I thought it made sense to click comments just in case because I didn't know what kind of format it is. Now that we've been through a few of these, it's clear that anybody can kind of chime in. So I didn't prepare anything, but I will add to the chorus, my concern about disposal cost being included. My recollection throughout the legislative process was that specifically in the draft bill, it was removed through the legislative process as it's been stated before. So we want to register our significant concern that there seems to be a new interpretation of the legislative intent and I'll stop there. Thanks.
1:55:14.90 --> 1:55:15.100
Breton, Mary B
OK. Thank you.
1:55:18.830 --> 1:55:22.610
Curtis Picard (Guest)
I probably should have introduced myself as well, and Curtis Picard with the Retail Association of Maine.
1:55:27.310 --> 1:55:32.60
Breton, Mary B
OK. So for our next speaker, Glenn Williams. Glenn, the floor is yours. Just be sure to unmute yourself.
1:55:53.730 --> 1:56:14.140
Glenn Williams
Well, good afternoon, everybody. I'm I thought it could be a bit of introduction here. So you know who I am and who I'm speaking on behalf of. I have a small consulting firm and right now I'm working for Clear Strategy that is working with a number of large producers with the recycling partnership in regards to EPR across the United States.
1:56:14.780 --> 1:56:27.70
Glenn Williams
So my background, I must speak specifically to the municipal reporting is that I'm located in Ontario right now and have been involved in municipal reporting for over 25 years at this point.
1:56:27.730 --> 1:56:31.440
Glenn Williams
For those people that aren’t familiar with Ontario municipalities, there are a little over 250 of them who report annually to the regulatory authority, which is the resource productivity recovery authority, and they do that through what's called the data call. They have been doing that for over 20 years through that data call, there is a standardized set of what costs are allowed in reporting their municipal recycling costs. Included in that data called Guidebook are cost allocation principles and standards that have developed dealing with how to do allocations between collection, other materials, etcetera.
1:57:3.940 --> 1:57:12.610
Glenn Williams
Municipalities report the cost to collect both curbside depot transfer operations as well as all the revenue received from the recycling programs.
1:57:13.260 --> 1:57:44.110
Glenn Williams
All of that information goes into a central database, managed by the regulatory authority that is then used to determine the funding obligations for municipalities that come from the stewardship organization. In Ontario, similar processes take place in Manitoba, and there are other processes that occur out in British Columbia. I have had the privilege over the last 20 years to have audited. I think I'm up to 46 municipalities data collection.
1:57:44.350 --> 1:58:14.760
Glenn Williams
My suggestion in this process is that there will need to be a data collection methodology put together with guidelines, rules etcetera, and that there will need to be a verification system that is taking place or done by the government, the regulatory authority, to ensure that the data that's collected is correct, and verifiable, and I can assure you that what's done in Ontario, all of those costs are linked directly back to the municipalities general accounting system.
1:58:15.420 --> 1:58:29.750
Glenn Williams
In addition, one of the things that is done is right now there are 20 municipalities chosen every year that undergo a financial audit by a CPA and I'm a CPA. I've done, as I said, 46 of those over the last 20 years or so.
1:58:30.510 --> 1:59:1.600
Glenn Williams
And so that was sort of my first comment was that in to collect data you need to make sure there is a centralized system needs to be implemented with rules how you do cost allocations. There needs to be verification and the ability to audit municipalities to ensure the integrity of that data. One of the questions you had in your collection or in your information you sent out was that I'm just going back to here was asking for information on a per material basis.
1:59:2.220 --> 1:59:31.530
Glenn Williams
That information, I can tell you simply will not be available at a local municipal level. They will not know the cost to collect cardboard versus a pet bottle versus an aluminum can. That's simply will not be available. That sort of information is normally gathered through activity based costing studies that are done either by, you know, a producer organization or by the regulatory authority or from the municipalities themselves. But it's not something that will be available. So I think it's important that you're not attempting to get data that simply will not be available at the municipal level.
1:59:37.640 --> 1:59:55.690
Glenn Williams
That is pretty much the comments for today. As I said, I'm just here to sort of advise you of that in that what I'd want to make sure is that the data collected is accurate, verifiable and can be subject to audit to make sure that when producers do pay the costs they know that they're paying for, what the true costs of recycling are.
2:0:4.600 --> 2:0:8.490
Breton, Mary B
Thank you, Glenn. Just stick around in case we have any follow up questions.
2:0:11.810 --> 2:0:13.960
Breton, Mary B
I have a couple of the data collection. I don't know if I should call it a database or not. The system that you mentioned.
2:0:25.880 --> 2:0:38.960
Breton, Mary B
My understanding of what you said is people report in their costs and then their methodologies for splitting those costs based on the different collection systems into material types and cost per material type is quantified?
2:0:40.670 --> 2:1:10.380
Glenn Williams
No, it's not into material types, it's into the recycling program. So many jurisdictions will have collection programs, only some of those costs of collection are related to recycling. Many of them have depots and so not all of the cost added will be recycling costs. The depots are located at a landfill site or the transfer station where other materials other than recyclable materials are collected.
2:1:11.280 --> 2:1:16.850
Breton, Mary B
Are those like default values or those quantified from that information? Is that information available?
2:1:18.340 --> 2:1:34.190
Glenn Williams
Absolutely. The regulatory authority posts a report every single year and also Tornonto produces Excel spreadsheets of the cost from every municipality, every year. And there's probably a decade worth of data on their website right now.
2:1:36.790 --> 2:1:44.900
Breton, Mary B
OK, thank you. I just make sure I have the organization correct. Can you give me the organization whose website this data is on?
2:1:45.810 --> 2:1:49.320
Glenn Williams
It is the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority. So the short format is RPRA.
2:1:50.760 --> 2:1:51.80
Breton, Mary B
OK.
2:1:55.210 --> 2:2:5.380
Glenn Williams
And if you if you just Google the RPRA data collection, you will have tremendous amount of data including the guidelines used by municipalities to report their data.
2:2:7.680 --> 2:2:8.210
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
2:2:13.460 --> 2:2:19.20
Breton, Mary B
Could you throw out a number on cost of a financial audit for one of these, approximately?
2:2:22.470 --> 2:2:24.940
Glenn Williams
That's a good. I'm not sure that RPRA releases that. They conduct 20 audits per year, and I believe their budget is around $200,000 to do all 20 of those audits.
2:2:36.230 --> 2:2:36.810
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
2:2:36.530 --> 2:2:41.710
Glenn Williams
And keep in mind it's a $500 million program that they're auditing.
2:2:44.950 --> 2:2:45.460
Breton, Mary B
Thank you.
2:2:53.370 --> 2:3:3.130
Breton, Mary B
Thank you, Glenn.
2:3:3.80 --> 2:3:3.450
Glenn Williams
Thank you.
2:3:6.100 --> 2:3:14.50
Breton, Mary B
This will be the last of the speakers that signed up to share comments, Newell Augur.
2:4:15.640 --> 2:4:20.690
Breton, Mary B
Hi folks. My name Newell Augur. And I am a lawyer at Pierce Altwood.
2:4:23.740 --> 2:4:35.970
Breton, Mary B
I’m here to provide some comments on behalf of the Maine Beverage Association, we do have other clients who have been engaged in this process, some of them we've heard from today. My comments are exclusively related to the Beverage Association.
2:4:36.980 --> 2:4:41.310
Breton, Mary B
Some of our Members are Coca-Cola NE; Pepsi Beverages, Maine; Blue Triton; Poland Springs; and Dr. Pepper.
2:4:49.380 --> 2:5:10.130
Breton, Mary B
I would like to point out that we recognize that most of our packaging is actually exempt from Maine’s EPR program. We do though have some of the shrink wrap for our multi packages, hardboard that's fits in between some of your larger cases, coffee pods, and other items which will fall into the program.
2:5:25.50 --> 2:5:31.230
Breton, Mary B
Because this is one of the first programs in the country, we obviously pay attention to it, not just in Maine, but on a national scale.
2:5:32.310 --> 2:5:36.700
Breton, Mary B
I also would also make the point that my sisters and brothers in Colorado were instrumental in drafting and passing the EPR legislation that has been ratified in that state. So I don't stand before you as someone who is speaking against EPR, but rather as part of a broader association that has supported it in part because of our effort to get every bottle back.
2:6:9.650 --> 2:6:19.20
Breton, Mary B
So I make these comments from a standpoint of wanting to see the program succeed and not from some other perspective. The hallmarks of any EPR program, and hopefully the hallmarks of this one, will be that it is financially sustainable, and that it will provide producers access to recycled material.
2:6:37.260 --> 2:6:49.120
Breton, Mary B
Those would be the two most important pieces of an EPR program from our perspective, and that is how we EPR in most of the other jurisdictions that have it in Europe and Canada is set up.
2:6:50.570 --> 2:6:53.840
Breton, Mary B
I'll speak to those two very quickly again. I'd also say my comments don't necessarily fit perfectly in today's topic from initial reimbursement, but since we're talking about what municipalities are doing and what they should be receiving and how they can access funds to the program, I think it's important to talk about.
2:7:12.520 --> 2:7:13.990
Breton, Mary B
The municipal obligation in that context. And again, I come to you as someone who served on my local town’s recycling committee. I was on the Brunswick Town Council when we voted to go to a paperless system so I have some knowledge of this. I think that the crux of it is understanding something that you guys had in the briefing memo as it related to municipal cooperation.
2:7:47.180 --> 2:7:50.270
Breton, Mary B
I look at it just in my own little town of Yarmouth, and this may be a southern Maine thing because I know how hard the MRC works to try to squeeze every nickel. I know how hard Mark Draper works to try to keep his cost down.
2:8:4.200 --> 2:8:24.730
Breton, Mary B
But in my little vantage point in southern Maine, Yarmouth has a transfer station and Falmouth has an operating transfer station, and Freeport has an operating transfer station and Gray has a transfer station and new Gloucester has a transfer station. Now I would challenge you to find a way in rules to have somebody address the circumstance where you have 5 municipalities within about a 14 1/2 mile square radius that all have operating transfer station.
2:8:44.320 --> 2:8:47.370
Breton, Mary B
We're going to set up a system, and again, it won't be my members that I represent, but a lot of the folks that Andy represents who are on this call who are going to be paying to keep 5 transfer stations operating in a 14 1/2 square mile radius when you could probably send one or two trucks to all of them and solve the issue that we're trying to get here, which is maximizing the amount of recycling at the least possible cost to taxpayer or the regulated entity.
2:9:20.360 --> 2:9:23.540
Breton, Mary B
When we talk about how municipalities should be reimbursed, and they need to be reimbursed, but how? How do we also solve for the issue of regionalization? Tony made some great comments I thought to that point.
2:9:35.720 --> 2:9:59.270
Breton, Mary B
I love home rule as much as the next guy, but if home rule means that we're going to have 4 communities, 5 communities in that square mile radius that are all operating independent transfer stations, that's not a financially sustainable model. And that's something that we're rulemaking has to address or the program won't succeed the way that we want it to succeed.
2:10:0.260 --> 2:10:1.970
Breton, Mary B
The second point I would make is about access to material.
2:10:5.260 --> 2:10:15.370
Breton, Mary B
And again, the caveat being that that my members won't have this issue with me because the bottle bill exists, but part of the purpose, at least from our perspective, for having EPR, is that regulated entities have access to the material to then use to make their new product.
2:10:38.410 --> 2:10:47.640
Breton, Mary B
We have a municipal recycling content law that, Brian I know is very familiar with. Sarah I know is familiar with it. She worked to get it passed. We supported that. It is requiring that we have a certain percentage of material that we put back that doesn't get down cycled to T-shirts or carpeting, but goes back into the bottles for the 10 or 20 times that we can do it before the material is no longer useful.
2:11:12.0 --> 2:11:15.350
Breton, Mary B
How is a producer going to get access to that material under this current system. On the one hand, we want to have recycled content mandates that encourages that circular economy.
2:11:29.50 --> 2:11:31.520
Breton, Mary B
But if the material is completely out of control of the of the regulated entity, then how are they going to get that material back again? This is not a necessarily a problem in Maine because the bottle bill so there is a separate collection method that we're doing, but having giving the producers that access, I mean, we're sure Sarah could speak to this too. We're working on setting up a stewardship model for the bottle bill, quite frankly, with the idea of giving the producers that that ability to, for a number of different reasons, but also to sort of strengthen the ability to producers to have that material to put back into recycled products.
2:12:15.760 --> 2:12:21.290
Breton, Mary B
Maine’s MRC law is limited, as California's, to bottles, but Washington State is not. It covers
a whole bunch of other personal care products. New jerseys is even broader than that. I think after about 5 or 10 years it is intended to cover nearly every product in the grocery store. So how can an EPR system that doesn't give those producers the opportunity to get the material that they need to put back into the products that the law is requiring them to do, and rightfully so? So just something to think about. You have a hard job ahead of you.
2:13:2.280 --> 2:13:15.210
Breton, Mary B
(DEP) I have a need for clarification for access to material. Are you suggesting collecting the material so that it's available to be bought on the market? Or are you suggesting that the producer should be able to somehow get it at like a submarket rate IHH? 
(Newell) The latter, whether it's a submarket rate or not isn't really the issue. The issue is do they have the right, do they have the ability to access the material that they have paid essentially for the municipality or some other entity to recycle?
2:13:42.140 --> 2:14:7.210
Breton, Mary B
(Newell) The law is saying they need to put that material back into their product, so where are they going to go out and buy it on the market, but for some, how will they buy it to get it without buying it off the market? 
(DEP) Well, so they can. I mean, are you suggesting that they go into the market? 
(Newell) There are probably a million different ways to skin that cat, Elena. I mean you could give them a right of first refusal.
2:14:7.980 --> 2:14:9.640
Breton, Mary B
I don't know. We have a fair number of months to figure that out, but that an issue because on the one hand, the law is asking them to put that material back into their products so they don't have to take virgin material, but they're now paying for that process to take place, but yet they have to go out and track that material down. If in fact it's circular, if in fact they are responsible for the product at the end of life, then that technically it should be their material, right? 
2:14:46.900 --> 2:14:47.580
Breton, Mary B
OK. Thank you.
2:14:51.930 --> 2:14:52.570
Breton, Mary B
One more question.
2:14:56.590 --> 2:15:24.560
Breton, Mary B
(DEP) Or they should get the revenue from it, or have that occur in the municipal reimbursement? 
(Newell) Yes, absolutely have that offset. I mean that's when in the just for the bottle Bill, I mean we sell the aluminum or PET or we try to put it back into our into the material that we're making and there is a value there. I mean it's not enough to pay for the cost of program, but there is definitely value in that material. 
2:15:27.60 --> 2:15:30.590
Breton, Mary B
Thank you. And I've got extra copies of this if anyone wants one. I don't see any follow up questions on the web, but we do have one more comment.
2:15:49.80 --> 2:16:19.850
Breton, Mary B
My name is Laura Berry. I'm the sustainability coordinator for the town of Bar Harbor and I just want to say again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the ongoing rulemaking process for the EPR packaging law. And I will submit written comments. So I'll be brief since I know that it seems like we'll probably end early. We would really like to emphasize that achieving the goals of this law in reducing the volume and toxicity packaging material, increasing the recycling of packaging material and removing the burden in managing these packing materials from municipalities and consumers and putting it back onto the producers pretty much entirely depends on the ability of communities across Maine to voluntarily participate in the municipal reimbursement program. We will not actually accomplish those goals of this program unless that's possible. So I will echo other comments from before that the requirements for municipal participation need to be as simple as possible in order to maximize widespread participation in the program and specifically recognize the integrated nature of waste management and related costs. We had a discussion earlier about how to itemize costs or specifically narrow down total costs related to addressing packaging readily recyclable or non readily recyclable. And I will just emphasize, I think there was one comment that said that it's not possible to do that ultimately across the board. A transfer station is a transfer station staff, equipment, all of those things that are used to manage solid waste are also used to manage pipeline and they shouldn't. You know, it would be impossible for municipalities, especially small communities, to actually remove or disaggregate those costs.
2:17:31.760 --> 2:17:59.550
Breton, Mary B
Specifically, we had conversations with staff and others, and one such simple vision for developing a formula for the municipal reimbursement program could include requirements for certain municipalities or others supported certain categories of municipalities supported by the service organization to conduct an annual or quarterly waste audit, something that Bar Harbor is now doing. Actually, in order to already identify our costs related to MSW, and to determine the percentage of what our waste stream actually is readily recyclable or non readily recyclable packaging. That percentage could be done just simply multiplied by the total annual cost to manage waste in a community that's an auditable number that's already included in our annual municipal budget, and that would determine total cost eligible for reimbursement. Very simple, very easy to do.
2:18:23.580 --> 2:18:27.540
Breton, Mary B
Keeping in mind, or at least in Bar Harbor, we have an annual MSW amount of about 5500 tons. We recognize that that's larger than most communities, but also smaller than others. So just thinking about what's feasible for us to do versus others. We recognize that there's more support needed for waste auditing or other data collection processes for communities not like ours.
2:18:46.390 --> 2:19:1.810
Breton, Mary B
We have a couple of comments just about specific questions post in the background information. How should municipalities be reimbursed for packaging not readily recyclable and which is disposed and should reimbursements reflect different costs for different disposal outcomes? If so, how?
2:19:2.370 --> 2:19:31.920
Breton, Mary B
Ultimately, a municipality should be reimbursed for cost associated with the management for recycling disposal of all packaging materials, regardless of whether it's readily recyclable or not. In Bar Harbor, single stream recycling, which who knows at the moment what percentage of that is packaging, still represents a significantly higher per ton cost to the taxpayer than MSW, about twice as much. Actually for us that's in part due to the lack of available close recycling facilities, other opportunities for revenue generation for recyclable materials and it's honestly pretty reasonable to argue that those factors mean that most packaging isn't readily recyclable for most communities in Maine, so not because of lack of efficiency or anything else, but just the reality of whether or not those materials can be used or recycled.
2:19:49.560 --> 2:20:9.370
Breton, Mary B
Should reimbursements reflect different costs for different recycling outcomes? I think this really is again kind of getting to the back to the point that the cost to the municipalities are the same to deliver packaging to a recycling facility, whether or not recycling facility is effective at recycling them. So again, the burden really should be on recycling outcomes and on those facilities in some way or another, but the funds from the EPR program really should be used to improve the accessibility and the efficiency of those facilities.
2:20:22.940 --> 2:20:52.0
Breton, Mary B
I haven't heard this brought up, so I feel like it's useful to mention it. Might there be an instance when a municipality is making loan payments on equipment for storage and facility? How might this be included when calculating costs? Yes, there is an instance, it's Bar Harbor and probably lots of other communities around Maine. All costs including for lease or purchase equipment incurred that's related to the management of packaging should be included in calculating those annual total costs for our transfer station which accepts MSW as well as single serve recycling.
2:20:52.100 --> 2:20:59.910
Breton, Mary B
With the bonds and we're continuing to make payments, the town does also not own some of the equipment that we use to accept and process single sort recycling.
2:21:0.350 --> 2:21:16.310
Breton, Mary B
I'm going back to the conversation about scales depending on the requirements for data collection and reporting, it's highly likely that many communities will have to acquire new equipment either through leasing or purchasing it in order to fully participate in the program. So those costs should be included.
2:21:17.570 --> 2:21:34.660
Breton, Mary B
This comes straight from our Director of public works around what time of year would be submitting another annual report, possibly requiring data from third parties be practicable. Ultimately, it wouldn't be practical to require the community submit another annual report, especially when there's already 2 reporting processes that are at least Bar Harbor submits data to, the annual solid Waste Management report as well as the newer biannual recycling report. So any data reporting requirements related to the program could and should be just amended onto an existing report.
2:21:49.240 --> 2:21:57.970
Breton, Mary B
I think that is about it in terms of other things have been have not been said. But yeah, thank you so much for your consideration and we're looking forward to starting the process moving forward.
2:21:59.210 --> 2:22:1.950
Breton, Mary B
Thank you, Laura. Let's just see if we have any questions.
2:22:3.160 --> 2:22:4.950
Breton, Mary B
I have a couple. 
2:22:6.700 --> 2:22:9.210
Breton, Mary B
(DEP)What are the population numbers for a place like Bar Harbor?
2:22:11.0 --> 2:22:41.110
Breton, Mary B
(Laura) 5000; that's a population analysis for the town of our harbor that shows that our census data is our annual population. But we get millions of visitors every year. So our MSW and recycling tonnage which is more than one ton per residence, our costs are significantly higher as a result because of that.
2:22:41.200 --> 2:23:7.620
Breton, Mary B
(Laura) You know, ultimately our taxpayer is our tax base, is taking on a huge amount of cost to manage a huge amount of municipal solid waste. So we don't have solid numbers as to what our real population is in Bar Harbor, but at the moment we are probably like other tourist based communities or summer visitor heavy communities incurring higher costs to manage solid waste than others.
2:23:8.500 --> 2:23:13.200
Breton, Mary B
(Laura) If you had or came up with a way of thinking about that, I guess send it our way. I'll share with you the population in the report that I'm working on.
2:23:21.720 --> 2:23:35.230
Breton, Mary B
(DEP) Then you talked about the disaggregation of costs. If, say, a stewardship organization went in with a set methodology and showed up at your transfer station and did some time studies, is that a manageable thing? It's likely what the reporting would be.
2:23:36.300 --> 2:24:7.430
Breton, Mary B. 
(Laura) I do think that recognizing that data verification is particularly important if the stewardship organization were there to support something like waste auditing and time studies, that's I think a reasonable thing. We are a large municipality, we have a person in my role and ability to gain volunteers or work community organizations to do some of those, but I I do think that keeping it as simple as possible and so far as you know, coming up with a single percentage or otherwise to allocate costs, a forklift is still a forklift, whether it's lifting up a palette of recyclable materials or lifting up MSW. So I think that there's it's just difficult to be honest to say that a certain staff member's time is spent
17.5% working on recycling packaging versus you know any just generally the management of the transfer station and engagement with the Community. I think that it would be particularly it might be a better use of time and resources on the part of the service to the storage organization to make it more simple for themselves rather than to try to do that data collection for every single category of community, a system eventually established.
2:25:11.990 --> 2:25:31.380
Breton, Mary B
(DEP) I've gone through the list for everyone who signed up to pass comment. But I guess before we sign off, we just want to make sure that anybody who wanted to share a comment got a chance to do so. So even if you didn't sign up to share comment but you have a comment to share, please put your hand up at this time so we can give you the floor.
2:25:52.680 --> 2:26:12.570
Breton, Mary B
Alright, well meeting 2 for municipal reimbursements and is scheduled for the 24th, same place same time. We strongly encourage your participation to continue at that time. And if you haven't already sent in your comments in written form, please do so to MainePackagingEPR@maine.gov.
2:26:22.700 --> 2:26:30.90
Breton, Mary B
OK, we're done now. Thank you.