Key portions of a waste and recycling bill backed by Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont are facing an uphill battle due to opposition from haulers and other industry groups.

Major provisions of HB 6664, such as extended producer responsibility for packaging, could be paused until similar programs are fully implemented in four other states, lawmakers told Connecticut Public Radio. A proposal to charge a $5-per-ton disposal fee for municipal solid waste shipped out of state is likely to be removed from the bill, they said. 

Lawmakers are expected to keep provisions that would expand organics separation programs and set mandatory rates for recycled content in plastic beverage containers. 

Some changes to the bill could be hammered out as early as today during a key environment committee meeting, said Will Healey, a spokesperson for the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. “We remain committed to the proposal and look forward to seeing it get out of committee,” he said.

Lamont sees the bill as a major step in a long-term plan for Connecticut to regain “self-sufficiency” in how it manages waste, recycling and organics systems. In July, the a major WTE facility run by Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority closed, causing the loss of about 720,000 tons per year of annual disposal capacity.

Food waste diversion and recycled content sections could stay in the mix

Tackling food waste is one method bill supporters say will help reduce the amount of material that goes to disposal. HB 6664 calls for statewide separation and collection of food scraps, a provision expected to maintain stakeholder support as the bill goes through the committee process. 

Connecticut already requires certain facilities, such as commercial food wholesalers, industrial food manufacturers and grocery stores, to separate organics from other solid waste. The bill would require certain schools, hospitals and prisons, along with businesses in the hospitality or entertainment sectors, to also follow that rule starting January 1, 2025. Anaerobic digester operation Quantum Biopower says the move would boost such businesses in the state.

Meanwhile, the bill’s recycled content provision has so far faced little criticism from lawmakers or stakeholders. By July 1, 2025, plastic beverage containers would need to contain 15% postconsumer recycled content and reach 25% by July 2028. By July 2033, it would need to be 50%, according to the bill. Producers would need to verify PCR through a third-party certification.

MSW fees not widely supported

Another proposal, which would impose a $5 per ton fee on municipal solid waste that is not recycled or composted, is not expected to gain traction. It also calls for a $3 fee per ton for waste bound for waste-to-energy facilities, up from the current $1.50. 

The Lamont administration says the fees would help pay for food waste collection infrastructure, but some municipalities and waste companies such as WIN Waste Innovations have pushed back, saying inflation and other costs have already made disposal fees too high.

About 40% of Connecticut’s waste is shipped out of state for disposal, mostly to landfills. Without the MIRA facility, more than 860,000 tons of municipal solid waste will be shipped out of state each year, Lamont said in January, when he announced the bill. “Relying on out-of-state landfills isn’t the answer,” he said.

EPR for packaging faces tough hurdles

The bill’s EPR for packaging provision is also facing criticism. Waste haulers in the state generally oppose the EPR for packaging plan, saying it could raise product costs, impact the state’s current single-stream recycling system and potentially interfere with existing contracts that haulers and recyclers have with municipalities. Companies such as Casella Waste Systems have said EPR should be reserved for hard-to-recycle materials. Connecticut already has EPR for paint, propane cylinders, electronics and mattresses.

Other groups support EPR for packaging but dislike Connecticut’s model. Nonprofit group Just Zero testified that the bill gives too much control to producers, particularly when setting fee structures and performance goals such as reduction and recycling rates.

EPR proponents say the packaging bill is based on best practices learned from other states that have recently passed such laws: California, Colorado, Oregon and Maine. The bill includes built-in checks and balances with final approval coming from DEEP, and research shows EPR does not significantly raise product costs, said Scott Cassel, CEO of the Product Stewardship Institute, which was involved in writing the model legislation for the bill. 

DEEP could take on more waste authority

The bill also aims to restructure other major solid waste management services as part of the state’s long-term waste strategy, a move supporters say is necessary to make systems more efficient.

As early as July 2023, the bill would give DEEP authority to issue RFPs on behalf of municipalities for waste management services such as anaerobic digestion, as well as “waste conversion, energy and fuel recovery,” according to the bill. It also calls for the state to manage MIRA’s board among other structural changes.

Jim Hayden, vice-chair of MIRA’s board of directors, said in a statement that the proposal could create “potential conflicts” with some of its existing operating contracts and municipal service agreements. Lew Dubuque, vice president of the Connecticut chapter of the National Waste and Recycling Association, testified that the proposal is a “power grab” to allow DEEP to become a developer instead of a regulator.

Interested in more packaging news? Packaging Dive is launching March 27. Sign up today.