Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/15/2024 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB164 | |
| SB175 | |
| HB143 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 175-ELECTRONIC DEVICE RECYCLING
SB 175-ELECTRONIC DEVICE RECYCLING
3:33:20 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 175 "An Act relating to an
electronic product stewardship program; relating to collection,
recycling, and disposal of electronic equipment; establishing
the electronics recycling advisory council; and providing for an
effective date."
3:33:49 PM
LÖKI TOBIN, Senator, District I, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 175, introduced herself.
3:33:56 PM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Senator Loki Tobin, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced himself.
3:34:00 PM
SENATOR TOBIN presented the opening statement.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Senate Bill 175
Electronic Device Recycling
Sponsor Statement
Senate Bill 175 creates a manufacturer-funded system
for collecting and recycling electronic devices. Flat-
screen televisions, computer monitors, and other
electronic devices have grown integral to modern life,
business, and education. With ever more devices, there
is a growing problem of electronic waste in Alaska.
SB 175 introduces the practice of product stewardship
for electronic devices sold in Alaska. Product
stewardship is a program where the manufacturer of an
electronic device assumes financial responsibility on
a life-cycle basis for that device. Manufacturers
would allocate funding to cover collection and
recycling activities. These costs are currently borne
by communities, non-profit organizations, Tribes, and
businesses.
Electronic waste associated with human health risks
includes lead used in the cathode ray tubes found in
computer and TV screens, cadmium used in rechargeable
computer batteries, contacts and switches, and mercury
used in the liquid crystal displays of mobile phones
and flat screen computer monitors as well as in
switches, batteries and fluorescent lamps. These
components are especially problematic in rural Alaska
where community landfills are often unlined, allowing
harmful chemicals to be released into local waters.
Landfill fires that include electronic devices can
cause smoke inhalation hazards in communities.
If SB 175 passes, Alaska will join half the states in
the nation, Canada and many other countries in having
a product stewardship law. Under SB 175 a manufacturer
offering electronic devices covered under this bill
for sale in Alaska would register with the Department
of Environmental Conservation and allocate funding for
the collection and recycling of devices proportional
to the volume of their sales. Manufacturers would
register individually or join a clearinghouse that
specializes in implementing these programs and
dividing the costs of the program among manufacturers.
This will create a funding stream to cover the costs
of collection, transportation and recycling which is
currently funded by a mix of grants and local tax
revenue.
SB 175 was developed by the Alaska Solid Waste Task
Force. Stakeholders in the task force include the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Kawerak
Incorporated, and Zender Environmental. SB 175 is
supported by the Alaska Federation of Natives, the
Solid Waste Association of North America as well as
numerous communities, organizations, and businesses.
SENATOR TOBIN gave a brief acknowledgment to her former
classmates for their help in starting the University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA) Recycling Club, which is now supported by a fee
at the university. She also expressed condolences to the family
of the late Gary Smith from Total Reclaim, who had previously
allowed her to volunteer for Community E-Waste Recycling Day in
exchange for fare tickets during her university days. She
mentioned another invited testifier, the Environmental Director
of Kawerak, who collaborated with her on e-recycling efforts in
the Nome community after her return from the Peace Corps. Alaska
has over 184 unlined landfills, and the chemicals from these
devices are leaching into water systems. According to data,
companies like Dell Technologies, which earned $102 billion in
2022, are financially capable of supporting e-waste recycling.
Currently, the burden of collecting, transporting, and recycling
electronic waste in Alaska falls on communities, nonprofit
organizations, tribes, and businesses, with entities like the
Nome-based nonprofit Kawerak carrying much of the
responsibility.
3:39:20 PM
MR. FLORA presented the sectional analysis for SB 175:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 175
Sectional Analysis
Section 1 (page 1) Legislative findings. The
legislature finds that the collaboration between
manufacturers of electronic devices to establish an
electronic recycling program is protected from federal
anti-trust actions.
Section 2 (page 2) Amends AS 29.10.200 to add
regulation of electronic device recycling to the list
of restrictions on home rule municipality powers.
Section 3 (page 2) Adds a new Sec. 29.35.142.,
providing that the authority to regulate electronics
recycling is reserved by the state.
Section 4 (page 2) Amends AS 45.50.572(b) a chapter
on competitive practices, regulation of competition,
consumer protection which prohibits monopolies. This
section adds the Electronic Product Stewardship
Program to the list of programs shielded from anti-
trust actions. SB 175 authorizes multiple companies
that manufacture electronic devices to combine forces
to create a clearing house for the purpose of funding
the program. This section ensures that the clearing
house will be protected from anti-trust lawsuits.
Sections 5 through 12 - (pages 2-6) Conforming changes
to ensure existing statute at Title 46 Chapter 6
Recycling and Reduction of Litter applies to itself
and not the proposed new statute relating to an
Electronic Product Stewardship Program.
Section 13 - (pages 6 23) Establishes the Electronic
Product Stewardship Program in the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Section 46.06.200 (page 6) Requires manufacturers of
the following electronic devices sold in the state to
register annually with the State of Alaska: computers
and small-scale servers; computer monitors;
televisions; printers, fax machines, and scanners;
digital video disc players, digital video disc
recorders, and videocassette recorders; video game
consoles; microwave ovens; digital converter boxes,
cable receivers, and satellite receivers; and battery-
operated portable digital music players, computer
keyboards, computer mice, and cables.
Section 46.06.210 (pages 7-10) Manufacturer e-scrap
program plans; manufacturer and manufacturer
clearinghouse responsibilities. Manufacturers of
electronic devices shall submit an annual plan to the
Electronics Recycling Advisory Council for feedback,
and incorporate this feedback into a plan submitted to
DEC. Plans must include contact information, a
description of the methods used in achieving the
recycling program, audit and accounting information,
and timelines for implementation. The manufacturer
shall assume all costs of implementing the plan. If
two or more manufacturers are participating in a
manufacturer clearing house the clearing house shall
assume all costs and manufacturers shall pay a
proportional share based on national sales over the
past two years.
Section 46.06.220 (pages 10-12) Establishes
requirements for the community electronic device
collection sites including the frequency of collection
events, and collector responsibilities.
Section 46.06.230 (page 12, 13) Department
responsibilities. DEC shall review and approve or
disapprove electronic recycling plans and annual
reports, conduct periodic studies to determine if new
devices should be added to the recycling program,
report to the legislature every two years after 2030
on the effectiveness of the program. DEC shall write
regulations to establish the amount and manner of
payment of a program administration fee for
manufacturers and manufacturer clearinghouses covered
under this act. DEC may adopt further regulations for
the implementation, and enforcement of the program.
Section 46.06.240 (page 14) Outreach requirements for
manufacturers of electronic devices participating in
recycling programs established by this act, for DEC,
for retailers of electronic devices, and for
communities.
Section 46.06.250 (page 14, 15) Prohibited acts. A
person may not knowingly mix electronic waste covered
under this act with landfill waste, may not knowingly
burn electronic waste. A retailer may not sell devices
covered under this act unless they are labeled and
branded. A manufacturer may not provide electronic
devices covered under this act unless it is labeled
and branded. An electronic recycling program may not
charge fees for collection.
Section 46.06.260 (page 15) Establishes penalties for
false statements, submitting falsified reports, and
failure to pay registration fees.
Section 46.06.270 (pages 16, 17) Establishes a 13-
member multi-stakeholder Electronics Recycling
Advisory Council, appointed by the Commissioner of
DEC, to serve two-year terms. The purpose of the
Advisory Council is to review and comment on a
proposed manufacturer e-scrap program plan before
submission of the plan to the department; (2) make
recommendations to the department regarding the
approval or disapproval of a manufacturer e-scrap
program plan; (3) make recommendations to the
department regarding the need for plan amendments or
other requirements based on annual reports; (4) review
and comment on regulations proposed by the department
under AS 46.06.230; and (5) by November 1 of each
year, beginning in 2026, provide to the department a
list of best practices for program collection sites
and single-day collection events under manufacturer e-
scrap program plans.
Section 46.06.280 (page 18) Describes those electronic
devices items that are not subject to the terms of the
act.
Section 46.06.290 (pages 19-23) Definitions
Section 14 - Transition section regarding seats on the
Advisory Council. The commissioner shall appoint seven
initial members of the electronics recycling advisory
council to serve four-year terms and the remaining six
initial members to serve three-year terms. Initial
members maybe appointed to subsequent two-year terms
thereafter.
Section 15 - Immediate effective date
3:47:39 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN expressed concern about the size of the board,
noting that 13 members seem excessive. While he acknowledged the
importance of public participation, he questioned the need for
such a large number.
3:47:57 PM
MR. FLORA explained that the 13-member board reflects the
diverse stakeholders identified by the Solid Waste Alaska Task
Force. However, he acknowledged that the number of seats could
be reconsidered and deferred to the invited testifiers for
further input.
3:48:36 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked whether Alaskans would be ready to comply
with an immediate effective date under SB 175, expressing
concern about the feasibility of meeting such a timeline.
3:49:04 PM
SENATOR TOBIN replied that the immediate effective date is
intended to help initiate the regulation process. However, the
actual program is not set to go into effect until 2029,
providing ample time to establish the framework, collaborate
with community partners, and implement the necessary plans.
3:49:28 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced invited testimony on SB 175.
3:50:06 PM
LELANDE REHARD, Manager, Policy and Programs, Product
Stewardship Institute, Anchorage, Alaska, moved to slide 2 and
described the Product Stewardship Institute. He stated that the
organization includes members from state and local governments
across the country, who also serve on its board and guide its
direction. Its goal is to support and promote the policies being
discussed today. The organization also collaborates with
industry partners, international governments, and other
stakeholders to better inform proposed bills and programs.
3:51:00 PM
MR. REHARD moved to slide 3 and explained extended producer
responsibility (EPR):
[Original punctuation provided.]
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
A law that extends a producer's financial and
managerial responsibility for its products and
packaging beyond the manufacturing stage both
upstream to product design and downstream to
postconsumer reuse, recycling, or safe disposal.
MR. REHARD noted that EPR extends a producer's responsibility
beyond product design and consumer use to include reuse,
recycling, and safe disposal. This approach gives manufacturers
both a financial and managerial stake in the end-of-life
management of their products. He noted that while this is not a
new concept, it has been a long-standing policy that has
successfully funded waste management and recycling in Europe,
Canada, and other countries for decades.
3:51:48 PM
MR. REHARD moved to slide 4 and spoke to EPR laws in the U.S in
2000:
[Original punctuation provided.]
U.S. EPR LAWS IN 2000
• 8 laws
• 1 product
• 7 states
MR. REHARD noted that EPR is prevalent in the United States and
is growing. In 2000, when the Product Stewardship Institute
first began, there were eight product stewardship laws in seven
states, specifically for batteries. Iowa had two of these laws.
3:52:05 PM
MR. REHARD moved to slide 5 and spoke to the status of EPR laws
as of 2024:
[Original punctuation provided.]
U.S. EPR LAWS 2024
• 136 laws
• 18 products
• 33 states
MR. REHARD stated that approximately 260 million Americans live
in states with product stewardship laws and programs.
3:52:24 PM
MR. REHARD moved to slide 6 and spoke to a bar chart depicting
EPR laws from 2000 to 2023. He stated that product stewardship
laws have been growing rapidly since 2000 and are now expanding
exponentially, with the number of such laws expected to increase
in the coming year. These laws are becoming a key policy for
managing challenging waste and promoting recycling instead of
landfill disposal.
3:52:46 PM
MR. REHARD moved to slide 7 and spoke to a graphic that shows
product categories. He highlighted that product stewardship laws
are used to manage waste across several product categories,
including batteries, pharmaceuticals, and packaging. Currently,
four states in the U.S. have programs covering packaging
materials like cans, bottles, and paper. Additional states are
expected to adopt similar programs soon.
3:53:13 PM
MR. REHARD moved to slide 8 and spoke to states in the U.S. that
follow electronics EPR laws. He noted that electronics is one of
the oldest product stewardship categories in the country, with
23 states and the District of Columbia having some form of law
and program for managing electronic waste. However, the programs
vary by state. While some states, like Oregon, Washington, New
Jersey, and Minnesota, have robust programs, others are less
developed. He expressed disapproval Missouri's program, which he
would not recommend for adoption in Alaska or other states.
3:53:49 PM
MR. REHARD moved to slide 9 and explained the process of
implementing EPR programs:
[Original punctuation provided.]
How does EPR work?
Law passes, manufacturers register with AK DEC and
join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO).
PRO develops a Program Plan and submits it to AK DEC
and Advisory Council.
Producer fees based on cost to the program and divided
based on a producer's market share.
PRO implements the program using local infrastructure,
submits annual reports to AK DEC and Advisory Council.
MR. REHARD noted that after a law, such as SB 175, is passed,
there is a lengthy implementation period during which
manufacturers or producers register with the Department and join
a coordinating body, often called a Producer Responsibility
Organization (PRO) in Europe. PROs specialize in managing these
laws on behalf of multiple manufacturers, unlike single entities
like Dell, which might manage only their products. The PRO
develops a plan by consulting with communities and logistics
experts to meet the law's objectives. Funding for the program
comes from manufacturers based on their market share, such as
Samsung's obligation that is proportional to its share of the TV
market. Once funded, the PRO collaborates with local
infrastructure to manage collection, transportation, and
recycling of materials. The PRO also ensures compliance with
industry and state standards. Regular reports, typically annual,
are provided to the advisory council to demonstrate the
program's effectiveness, outreach efforts, and adherence to the
law's goals.
3:56:56 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether he is familiar enough with SB 175
to comment on the specifics of this legislation or if he is
speaking generally about these programs.
3:57:06 PM
MR. REHARD replied that he could discuss specifics about SB 175
to the best of his ability but noted that he may request to
follow up later with responses to any questions.
3:57:24 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR acknowledged his general understanding of SB 175.
However, he expressed concern about Sections AS 46.06.250, and
AS 46.06.260 of SB 175, which address prohibited acts and
penalties for individuals. He noted that he was surprised to
find provisions imposing fines of up to $10,000 on individuals
for actions such as improperly disposing of electronics. He
opined that these implications would have a significant impact
and questioned whether such significant penalties for
individuals, rather than corporate polluters, are typical in
other states and how these fines are applied.
3:58:48 PM
MR. REHARD explained that the penalties in SB 175 are part of a
broader approach to waste management known as a landfill ban.
This policy encourages the use of recycling infrastructure by
prohibiting the disposal of certain items in landfills. He noted
that while not all states use landfill bans, the inclusion of
penalties aims to ensure compliance with the recycling program.
He clarified that the specifics of penalty structures and
enforcement are typically decided by individual states based on
their existing statutes and fee structures. He cited
Massachusetts as an example of a state with notable landfill
bans, while Washington is known for its strong recycling
programs but fewer landfill bans. He emphasized that the exact
fee structures and enforcement practices are determined by state
stakeholders and agencies, and he deferred to Alaska's
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to decide on the
appropriate approach for enforcement and penalties.
4:00:32 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR expressed appreciation for the explanation and
requested additional information on the enforcement of landfill
bans. He asked for evidence or examples from states with
landfill bans, such as Massachusetts, regarding how and when
these bans are enforced. He expressed concern about the
practical enforcement of such bans, noting the potential for
numerous daily violations, such as individuals inadvertently
disposing of old electronics. He requested details on how
enforcement is handled in practice and how often such violations
are addressed.
4:01:21 PM
MR. REHARD explained that enforcement of landfill bans is
typically not directed at individuals. Instead, enforcement
often involves landfill inspectors who notice prohibited items,
such as electronics, and then work with trash haulers to improve
outreach and inform customers about proper disposal practices.
He stated that, based on his experience with various state
departments, individual fines for such violations are rare.
Enforcement usually focuses on improving practices at the
landfill and ensuring compliance through better education and
outreach. Enforcement practices might vary in Alaska and
suggested considering the practicality and reasonableness of
such fees and bans in the state.
4:02:16 PM
SENATOR TOBIN recommended reviewing page 14 of SB 175, which
outlines significant outreach requirements to inform the public
about potential penalties for violating the legislation. She
noted that some invited testifiers would discuss practices in
rural Alaska, where managed facilities are less common. In such
areas, improper disposal of materials might occur at unmanned
sites. The bill aims to educate the public and clarify
penalties, rather than primarily targeting enforcement of
improper disposal in remote areas. The goal of SB 175 is to
provide education and ensure understanding of the electronic
recycling program's requirements and consequences.
4:03:26 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted that his mother formerly managed the
recycling program in Cordova and raised concerns about equity
issues in enforcing recycling bans. He said rural areas and
small towns might lack well-established recycling programs,
making enforcement challenging. He questioned how SB 175
addresses these issues, noting that residents in such areas
might face difficulties accessing recycling facilities and
affording proper disposal. He asked whether the intent should be
to address these equity concerns without penalizing individuals
in such situations.
4:04:15 PM
SENATOR TOBIN replied that is correct.
4:04:41 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked whether there are considerations for
potential issues related to Alaska's small and remote market
when implementing recycling statutes. He expressed concern that,
given Alaska's limited population and remote supply chains,
there might be risks of adverse reactions from businesses. He
questioned whether there could be situations where businesses
might respond to new recycling fees or requirements in a way
that could impact availability or access to products, such as a
scenario where a retailer might withhold sales of certain items
due to new regulations.
4:05:28 PM
MR. REHARD acknowledged the concern about potential market
impacts due to new recycling statutes in a small and remote
market like Alaska. He noted that similar concerns were raised
in Hawaii, which has an electronics EPR program, but no
significant issues have been reported. He explained that while
logistical challenges exist, the overall cost of these programs
is relatively small compared to industry revenues. For instance,
a program may cost around $4 to $5 million annually, translating
to approximately 35 cents per pound of collected material,
compared to retail sales revenue of $500 billion. Larger
manufacturers are obligated to participate, while very small
businesses may be exempt from these requirements, minimizing the
burden on smaller entities.
4:07:47 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether states with similar electronics
recycling laws have observed any significant changes in sales
due to the additional cost being incorporated into the sale
price of electronics. He inquired about the impact of these
recycling fees on consumer behavior and sales figures.
4:08:10 PM
MR. REHARD replied no. He said that, generally, there is no
significant change in sales prices attributed to recycling
programs, except when a direct consumer fee is involved. He
noted that California's model includes a fee added at the point
of sale, which is different from the approach being proposed in
Alaska. In other states with similar programs, such as those for
electronics and packaging, there is no noticeable cost increase
linked specifically to these programs. Studies on packaging
programs show no discernible impact on consumer goods prices
beyond what might be attributed to inflation or sales tax.
4:09:12 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether, considering the California
example, when purchasing a computer, consumers would pay an
additional fee directly on top of the sales tax, which would be
added to the final price at the point of sale.
4:09:29 PM
MR. REHARD replied that he believes California charges an
additional fee specifically for TVs and monitors, which is added
to the final price at the point of sale. This fee is listed on
their website and is updated occasionally. Unlike the proposed
program for Alaska, this fee directly impacts consumers rather
than obligating manufacturers.
4:10:35 PM
AHNAMA SHANNON, Environmental Director, Kawerak, Inc., Nome,
Alaska, invited testimony for SB 175. She moved to slide 11 and
noted that Kawerak, Inc. is a native nonprofit in Nome that
serves the Bering Strait region. She discussed the challenges of
waste management in small villages, highlighting a strategy
implemented by her organization over the past 15 years. This
strategy involves collecting household hazardous materials from
small villages, repackaging them in Nome, and sending them to
Seattle for proper recycling. She emphasized the environmental
and health issues associated with rural landfills, which are
unlined and often involve burning trash to reduce volume. This
practice releases dioxins and toxins into the environment,
contaminating the air and water table, and affecting human
health, particularly for those involved in subsistence
practices. The slide displays images of village landfills,
illustrating the close proximity of these sites to residential
areas and the lack of proper waste management. Removing toxic
electronic waste from these landfills is important to protect
human health and improve environmental conditions. She expressed
hope that SB 175 could lead to future expansions to address
other products.
4:13:57 PM
MS. SHANNON moved to slide 12 and highlighted the close
proximity of landfills to community spaces, such as playgrounds
and schools, which is a common issue in small communities due to
their limited footprint. During winter, the need for easy access
to landfills often results in them being situated close to
residential areas. She pointed out the environmental and health
risks associated with burning waste, particularly electronic
waste, which releases harmful dioxins. In 2014, she and other
professionals established the Solid Waste Alaska Task Force
(SWAT team), with their initial focus on the Backhaul Alaska
program. This initiative involves transporting electronics,
lead-acid batteries, and other hazardous materials to Seattle or
other locations for proper recycling. The program has received
strong support from industry and federal sources. Through
extensive meetings and collaboration with various sectors,
including transportation and finance, they explored ways to
sustain these recycling efforts. They discovered the concept of
product stewardship, which involves sharing the cost burden with
the industry that produces these products. This approach holds
manufacturers responsible and encourages them to share the
burden, plus encourages manufacturers to create longer-lasting,
less disposable products. The team studied successful models of
product stewardship, such as the one in Victoria, British
Columbia, and sees it as a potential long-term solution for
maintaining a clean environment and promoting recycling in
Alaska.
4:17:15 PM
MS. SHANNON moved to slide 13 and said she is representing the
boots on the ground perspective. With 15 years of experience
running the program at Kawerak, Inc., she highlighted the
significant costs of shipping recyclables from Nome to Seattle,
which can amount to $7,000 for a Conex container. This cost is
only for shipping from Nome, not including the transportation
from remote villages to Nome. She explained that many small,
rural landfills have major issues, including proximity to
schools and homes, which poses health risks from burning trash.
The program at Kawerak aims to remove hazardous materials from
these landfills to prevent environmental contamination. She
noted that the landfill situation is common across many small
places due to the small footprint of these communities.
Expanding recycling infrastructure and implementing a
comprehensive statewide program could help address these
challenges. She supported the idea of product stewardship, where
the burden of recycling costs is shared with industry, making it
a more sustainable solution for managing electronic waste and
other materials. The proposed bill would help small communities
establish better recycling programs, improving their ability to
manage waste and protect the environment and public health.
4:19:01 PM
REILLY KOSINKI, Specialist, Waste Logistics and Training
Development, Zender Environmental Health and Research Group,
Haines, Alaska, invited testimony for SB 175. He spoke to slides
13 - 14:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Electronics are the best products to start with
Why electronics?
40 lbs per year of Electronics per person are
discarded annually. They are a growing waste.
They contain toxic heavy metals (e.g. lead, mercury,
cadmium), PFAS, and more that can affect neuro-
development, motor development, behavioral control,
and are teratogenic and carcinogenic.
Unlike lead-acid batteries, most electronics don't
demand a market price.
MR. KOSINSKI stated that Zender Environmental Health and
Research Group is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit based in Anchorage that
provides training and technical assistance to rural communities
on solid waste issues. He said he is also a member of the Solid
Waste Alaska Task Force and serves as the statewide coordinator
for the Backhaul Alaska program. He explained that the Backhaul
Alaska program aims to establish a statewide framework to enable
communities to effectively and affordably ship out hard-to-
manage materials, thus diverting them from landfills. One of the
materials the Backhaul Alaska program focuses on is e-waste,
which is visible, bulky, and contains materials that, if
improperly disposed of or burned, can pose significant risks.
Groundwork efforts have been successful over the past 15-20
years to help people recycle e-waste. Many rural communities use
Class III landfills and often resort to burning waste to reduce
volume, which exacerbates the problem of hazardous materials. He
shared his experience in the field over the past 17 years,
noting that while there is a general understanding of the risks
associated with e-waste and a desire to recycle it, the
challenge remains the high cost of proper disposal. Despite
individual and group efforts, including programs like Backhaul
Alaska, there is a lack of a sustainable funding source to
support regular, statewide shipments of e-waste. SB 175 would
ensure that even the smallest and most remote communities in
Alaska receive the necessary resources to manage e-waste
consistently and effectively, providing a long-term solution for
recycling electronics.
4:21:47 PM
MR. KOSINSKI moved to slide 15 and spoke to third-party
engagement on e-waste management efforts. He said it took years
of engagement with many stakeholders to reach this point. He
emphasized that numerous people contributed input throughout
various stages of the process, which is reflected in the
resolutions passed by organizations such as the Alaska
Federation of Natives (AFN) and the Solid Waste Association of
North America's Alaska chapter (SOWANA). These resolutions
support product stewardship for managing e-waste, underscoring
the collaborative effort and broad support for SB 175.
4:22:20 PM
MR. KOSINSKI moved to slide 16 and explained the benefits of SB
175:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Many Benefits
Help protect subsistence resources from toxics and
rural health in other ways.
Create jobs and infrastructure in rural communities,
as well as Alaska's recycling and transportation
sectors.
Bring revenue to Alaska's struggling tribal and local
governments
Bolster rural technical skills capacity and ensure
safe handling of hazardous materials.
Recover valuable metals
MR. KOSINSKI noted that SB 175 would provide a long-term funding
source, enabling both rural and urban areas to divert e-waste
from landfills and ensure proper recycling. This would integrate
these materials back into the circular economy. He noted that
product stewardship for e-waste is already in place in nearly
half the states, with similar programs existing for various
other materials in even more states. The lower 48 states benefit
from such programs. Alaska, with its unique challenges and
needs, stands to benefit significantly from this bill,
especially for rural communities.
4:23:50 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL concluded invited testimony and opened public
testimony on SB 175.
4:24:18 PM
SIMONE SEBALO, Deputy Director, Zender Environmental Health and
Research Group, Haines, Alaska, offered to answer questions
related to SB 175. She introduced herself as a member of the
Solid Waste Alaska Task Force and a collaborator with Riley on
the Backhaul Alaska program. She mentioned she has been involved
in product stewardship since 2017. She offered to provide
support and assist with any questions related to SB 175.
4:24:45 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony and concluded invited
testimony on SB 175. She invited Senator Tobin to provide
closing remarks.
4:25:06 PM
SENATOR TOBIN noted that the large number of participants on the
Advisory Council reflects the significant investment in
developing the proposal. She opined that having diverse input
from various stakeholders is crucial for effective and inclusive
decision-making. SB 175 would support existing community efforts
to manage hazardous materials and addresses the need to improve
waste management practices. Ensuring everyone lives in a healthy
community is a fundamental goal of the bill.
4:26:23 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL expressed gratitude for SB 175. She shared a
personal experience of paying to recycle computers rather than
disposing of them improperly. She highlighted the environmental
and health impacts of e-waste and commended the effort to find a
solution.
4:26:53 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 175 in committee.