From Review to Comment: Key Themes from NSAC's Response to the Draft Responsible End Markets Standard

What we heard during the June 30 work session and what NSAC submitted in its comments on the draft Responsible End Markets Standard

On June 30, the National Stewardship Action Council (NSAC), Stewardship Action Foundation (SAF), and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) hosted a member-exclusive work session on Circular Action Alliance's (CAA) draft Responsible End Markets (REM) Standard.

Nearly 150 members and partners registered to participate. And, we’re grateful for their engagement, contributions, and feedback around the draft standard.

We convened the session because Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs for packaging are entering a new phase. Across the country, conversations are shifting from legislation and rulemaking to implementation and operations. Program plans, standards, reporting requirements, verification frameworks, and operational decisions will ultimately determine whether these programs deliver on their intended environmental, economic, and public health goals.

For NSAC, this is familiar territory. For more than a decade, NSAC has worked to advance circular economy policies while remaining actively engaged in implementation. Whether through legislation, rulemaking, program development, or interstate holder engagement, our work does not end when a bill is signed into law. Successful implementation is where outcomes are achieved, public confidence is built, and stewardship programs prove their value. That is also why NSAC and SAF continue to invest in our National Packaging & EPR Implementation Working Group.

One of the greatest benefits of membership is the opportunity to engage directly with producer responsibility organizations, regulators, local governments, recyclers, service providers, consultants, and other key interest holders who are helping shape implementation in real time. The goal is not simply to receive updates after decisions are made. The goal is to understand emerging issues early, ask questions, exchange perspectives, and provide informed feedback while policies and programs are still taking shape. And, the June 30 work session was one example of that work in action.

We are grateful to SWANA for partnering with us to host the work session as well as CAA for joining the discussion, providing additional context on the draft standard, and answering questions during the public comment period.

Highlights from the Discussion

Harmonization with State-Specific Requirements

CAA confirmed that the REM Standard is intended to harmonize requirements across states where regulations align while preserving state-specific requirements through state appendices. As more states implement Packaging EPR programs, finding the right balance between consistency and state-specific requirements will continue to be an important implementation challenge.

Material Traceability Remains a Central Question

A significant portion of the discussion focused on material traceability beyond material recovery facilities (MRFs). Participants explored questions related to downstream supply chain auditing, export tracking, verification of material movement through domestic and international markets, and the process for identifying and removing non-compliant end markets over time. These discussions reflected a growing interest in transparency and accountability throughout the recycling supply chain, not only where materials are collected and processed, but where they ultimately end up.

Technical Definitions Continue to Shape Implementation

Several technical areas generated substantial discussion and feedback.

Topics included chemical recycling versus advanced recycling, the use of ISO standards, definitions of recycling and recovery, contamination, hazardous material packaging, and whether reuse systems may eventually require their own verification framework.

While these issues may appear technical, they often have significant implications for implementation, reporting, compliance, and program oversight.

The Public Comment Process Matters

CAA noted that comments submitted by the July 7 deadline would be considered for incorporation into the pilot version of the REM Standard. Participants were encouraged to submit comments through the online portal using section-specific recommendations and proposed revisions.

Supporting More Informed Member Comments 

Following the presentation, the group coordinated next steps for members.

Participants reviewed priority sections of the draft standard, discussed key issues that organizations may wish to evaluate, shared collaborative review resources, and encouraged members to develop and submit comments based on their own expertise and operational experience.

One of the primary goals of the session was to help members better understand the draft standard and submit more informed comments before the deadline.

A Stronger Standard Begins with Strong Engagement

We appreciate the participation of our members, partners, SWANA, and Circular Action Alliance, and we look forward to continuing the conversation through NSAC and SAF's National Packaging & EPR Implementation Working Group as implementation efforts continue across the country.

NSAC’s Comments on the Draft Responsible End Market Standard

Following the work session, NSAC submitted comments on the draft REM Standard. While our comments addressed specific sections of the document, several broader themes emerged.

General Notes on Development & Process

The creation of the draft Responsible Markets (REM) Standard lacked balanced representation. The Standard Development Committee (SDC) consists of 14 members heavily weighted toward corporate packaging manufacturers, chemical producers, and industry trade associations but it was balanced for Oregon having DEQ on the committee.  There are no local, regional, or municipal governments included however. Local public entities, the ones tasked with managing solid waste, running local infrastructure, and enforcing regional resource and waste recovery, were excluded from the drafting room as were NGO’s except for one global NGO.

However, this standard is generally much better than the current situation, which is almost a total lack of transparency and accountability and we can support this draft but would be concerned if the “bar was dropped” in the next version.

Preserving Regional Authority in Multi-State Harmonization

The draft standard notes that its primary objective is to "provide an objective basis for verification across jurisdictions" and establish "harmonized requirements where two or more U.S. State requirements align." It should be important to note that multi-state harmonization must not weaken, supersede, or result in a downward harmonization of the state-specific REM requirements adopted through SB 582 and Oregon rulemaking.  However, if Oregon has the highest standard on something and wishes it to be in the certification standard, another state needs to do the same as Oregon. 

Technical Comments & Proposal Remedies

COMMENT 1: Scope and Limitations

• 2.2.6 

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement / Rationale: The standard only addresses primary covered materials but fails to mention the contamination to the packaging and how it is managed.

• Proposed Resolution/Text Change: Add an explicit language in 2.2 section: "Contamination of covered product streams shall be managed to the standards of waste management disposal in the County of final disposition and prevent any contamination from being improperly disposed into the environment"

COMMENT 2: Conformance to the Standard

• 3.1.2

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement/Rationale: Currently states: "Failure to undergo a surveillance or recertification audit within the specified timeframe may result in the suspension or termination of the certification."   The “may” applies to both critical and non-critical requirements and should be clarified that any critical requirements that fail to undergo the timely surveillance or recertification “SHALL” have their certification suspended immediately.

• Proposed Resolution/Text Change: Amend the last sentence in 3.1.2 to read: " Failure to undergo a surveillance or recertification audit for critical criteria within the specified timeframe shall result in the immediate suspension or termination of the certification and for non-critical criteria, may result in suspension or termination."

COMMENT 3-7: Terms and Definitions

• Line 144-145: Definition of End Market

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement/Rationale: Again, the definition of End Market does not address hazardous product packaging at all and how we can keep them separate from food grade streams.

• Proposed Resolution /Text Change: An entity that produces recycled output used as a feedstock to replace virgin materials into a final product or into materials for incorporation into a final product.  Final products, if not confirmed to be free of hazardous product packaging, and are being used for food grade packaging, must undergo testing to ensure hazardous chemicals that may have been absorbed are not present and meet food grade packaging standards.

• Line 162 Extended Producer Responsibility

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement/Rationale: Weak definition that doesn’t clearly define EPR as producers pay for all the costs.  a) the shifting of responsibility (physically and/or fully; fully or partially) upstream towards the producer and away from government or municipalities” and b) the provision of incentives to producer to take into account environmental considerations when designing their products”

• Proposed Resolution /Text Change: “a) the shifting of responsibility for a products end of life to the producer and away from government or municipalities because only they can change product design and marketing decisions which impact end -of-life costs. “ b) when producers pay the end-of-life costs, it incentivizes producers to consider public and environmental health and disposition costs when designing their products”

• Line 182: Definition of Hazardous Waste

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement/Rationale: Leaving the determination and standards to the federal government for oversight of what is hazardous has not worked.  We still have plastic packaging that is entering the food grade stream and the REM draft does not discuss how hazardous packaging and non-hazardous food grade will be kept separated to protect public health.

• Proposed Resolution /Text Change: Add a) packaging that has contained hazardous waste shall be kept separated and tracked for end -of-life use and reported back to CAA for volume and final use to protect public health and prevent any contamination of food grade packaging streams”

• Line 184: Definition of Processing

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement/Rationale: “transforms” is typically used to describe “transformation” which is burning of waste.  This is confusing and recommend changing “transforms” to “converts”.  Also recommend adding “recycling or” between “of disposal” in the last sentence because the definitions of Processing and Recycling are not totally clearly differentiated.

• Proposed Resolution /Text Change: An activity or series of activities conducted after collection that, when taken together, converts a material into a specified grade commodity.”  And Processing occurs upstream of recycling or disposal”.

• Line 204: Definition of Recycling

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement/Rationale: Again, changing transforms to converts.

• Proposed Resolution /Text Change: Process of converting recovered material….

• Line 212: Definition of Responsible End Market

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement/Rationale: “recovery” has been used to describe “transformation” which is burning of waste for energy.  This is confusing and recommend removing “or recovery” because it only confuses the definition and does not add to it.  Instead, use “collected” and put in front of recycling as that is the order of the process.

• Proposed Resolution /Text Change: “A materials market in which the collection or recycling of materials or the disposal of contaminants is conducted in a way…”

COMMENT 4: Labor, Health and Safety

• 7.3.7

• Type of Comment: Technical

• Problem Statement/Rationale: It is just as important to ensure that approved entities are self-reporting violations or near violations to learn and avoid future problems.

• Proposed Resolution/Text Change: Amend 7.3.7 to include: "The entity shall record any workplace injuries or near misses, and take appropriate corrective actions.”

COMMENT 5: Environmental Management System

• 8.1.1

• Type of Comment: Technical

Problem Statement/Rationale: CAA cannot apply US based hazardous waste rules onto other countries.  Also, it is not clear what the intent was – is it intending to define hazardous waste, regardless of country, to be how the U.S. defines it in 40 CFR 261.3, or simply to emphasize compliance with permits?

It currently reads: “The entity shall comply with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, permits, treaties, or other legal requirements or agreements, including those relating to entities directly contracted to treat waste or transport of wastewater. Any instance of noncompliance shall be documented and reported, and entities shall provide proof of resolution of the noncompliance. NOTE: Hazardous waste must be handled and disposed of in compliance with an applicable permit and 40 CFR 261.3. Minor technical violations or minor deviations from permit conditions that do not result in, or are not reasonably likely to lead to, actual environmental harm or harm to public health shall not, by themselves, be considered noncompliance.”  

Proposed Resolution/Text Change: We suggest the NOTE be rephrased to read “Hazardous waste as defined by 40 CFR 261.3 must be handled and disposed of in compliance with an applicable permit by local and federal authorities.”