COMMENTS  IN  SUPPORT  OF    

H  5264  AN  ACT  RELATING  TO  HEALTH  AND  SAFETY-­‐  

REDUCE  MARINE  DEBRIS  AND  PRESERVE  LANDFILL  SPACE    WHILE  INCREASING  THE  RECYCLING  OF  POST-­‐CONSUMER  PACKAGING  MATERIAL  

 April  4,  2013  

 Chairman  Handy,  Madame  Vice  Chair  Walsh,  members  of  the  Environment  and  Natural  Resources  Committee,  I  am  Michael  Washburn,  the  Vice  President  of  Sustainability  at  Nestlé  Waters  North  America.        It  is  my  pleasure  to  submit  these  comments  in  support  of  H  5264,  which  would  require  producers  of  printed  paper  and  consumer  packaging  to  create  a  system  that  helps  Rhode  Island’s  municipalities  arranges  for  and  finance  the  collection  and  recycling  of  post-­‐consumer  packaging.        There  is  a  well-­‐known  resource  conservation  hierarchy  that  school  children  know  by  heart:    “Reduce,  reuse,  recycle.”    It’s  a  pathway  that  many  companies  like  mine  have  followed.    We  have  reduced  the  weight  of  our  packaging,  we  (and  other  water  bottlers)  pioneered  reuse  at  the  water  cooler,  and  our  view  on  recycling  is  somewhat  single-­‐minded:    We  want  to  turn  our  bottles  back  into  bottles.        Five  years  ago,  Nestlé  Waters  pledged  to  work  toward  a  60%  recycling  rate  for  PET  beverage  containers  by  2018.    Today,  three  of  our  brands  are  available  in  50%  recycled  content  plastic  in  select  parts  of  the  U.S.,  including  our  Arrowhead  brand  spring  water  in  the  western  U.S.    If  companies  like  mine  are  going  to  be  successful,  we  need  a  robust  collection  and  recycling  system,  and  we  believe  an  extended  producer  responsibility  (EPR)  model  holds  great  promise  to  help  not  just  our  business  needs,  but  to  boost  overall  diversion  and  recycling  rates  and  allow  cities  &  states  to  recapture  the  value  in  their  waste  streams.              

Michael P. Washburn, Ph.D. Vice President, Sustainability

michael.washburn@waters.nestle.com  

EPR  extends  a  producer’s  responsibility  for  products  and  packaging  to  the  post-­‐consumer  stage.    Government  sets  the  goals  and  performance  standards,  brand  owners—rather  than  taxpayers—bear  the  cost  for  the  collection  and  processing  of  recyclables,  and  form  not-­‐for-­‐profit  boards  that  design  and  run  the  recycling  programs  to  reach  higher  recycling  rates.        To  be  sure,  EPR  is  a  different  way  of  recycling  than  what  we’re  doing  now.    Some  models  work  efficiently  and  cost-­‐effectively,  and  some  don’t.    Understandably,  brand  owners,  packaging  manufacturers,  local  governments,  haulers,  and  retailers  have  questions  and  concerns.        No  EPR  supporter  can  guarantee  the  success  of  this  approach  to  recycling  any  more  than  a  skeptic  can  guarantee  its  failure—and  there  is  so  much  to  learn  from  the  experience  and  viewpoints  of  all  interested  parties.        Last  year,  the  state  Senate  created  a  commission  to  do  just  that,  and  the  Grocery  Manufacturers  Association  sponsored  its  own  study.    And  last  month,  a  non-­‐profit  organization  called  Recycling  Reinvented,  on  whose  board  my  company’s  chairman  sits,  commissioned  a  cost-­‐benefit  analysis  study  to  provide  stakeholders  with  a  data-­‐driven,  fact-­‐based  appraisal  of  an  EPR  recycling  system  for  household  packaging  and  printed  paper.    This  study  will:  

• Analyze  the  current  recycling  system,  and  clearly  define  a  model  EPR  system  for  the  United  States  based  on  policies  and  best  practices  that  would  increase  recycling  rates  and  improve  material  quality.      

• Examine  the  associated  costs  to  collect  and  process  the  recovered  material  through  EPR,  the  fees  that  producers  could  potentially  pay  to  organize  recovery,  and  the  potential  benefits  of  increased  recycling.      

• Feature  a  structured  peer  review  process  by  a  range  of  stakeholders  who  will  observe  the  progress  of  the  study  and  provide  comments  on  the  methodology  and  analysis,  with  the  aim  of  strengthening  the  quality  and  impartial  presentation  of  the  results.  

 Nestlé  Waters  North  America  believes  that  a  low-­‐cost,  efficient,  and  uniquely  American  EPR  model  can  offer  a  game-­‐changing  solution  to  boost  recycling  rates,  boost  jobs,  save  natural  resources,  and  allow  manufacturers  to  maximize  the  recycled  material  in  our  products  and  packaging.    That  is  why  we  thank  you,  Madame  Vice  Chair,  for  sponsoring  this  bill,  along  with  you,  Mister  Chairman,  as  well  as  Representatives  Tanzi,  Ruggiero,  and  Valencia.    We  urge  passage  of  the  bill,  and  stand  by  to  assist  in  your  important  work.        Thank  you.