Creates provisions relating to a post-consumer paint recycling program
HB 1216 creates a new section of Missouri law establishing a producer responsibility program for post-consumer architectural paint. The bill requires paint manufacturers, either individually or through a nonprofit representative organization, to submit a plan to the Department of Natural Resources for an approved statewide collection and recycling program. The program must promote reuse, recycling, energy recovery, and environmentally sound disposal of leftover paint, and it must include consumer education, collection-site access standards, and annual reporting requirements.
The bill defines key terms such as architectural paint, producer, retailer, collection site, and paint assessment fee. It authorizes producers to add a per-container fee to paint sold in the state to fund the program, subject to independent financial review, and requires producers or representative organizations to pay an administrative fee to cover the department’s oversight costs. Retailers are generally not responsible for tracking, remitting, or reporting the fee on behalf of manufacturers, though they may choose to display the fee to consumers or provide fee information before purchase.
Under the bill, paint sold in Missouri after program implementation may not be offered for sale unless the brand’s producer or representative organization is participating in the approved program. The bill also sets collection-access goals, including that 90% of Missouri residents should have a collection site within 15 miles, or else periodic collection events or other approved services must be provided. The Department of Natural Resources is given oversight authority to approve plans, review annual reports, and enforce compliance, but it is not responsible for creating or operating the program itself.
The bill’s impact on state law is to shift responsibility for paint waste management from government and local disposal systems toward a producer-funded stewardship model. It would affect paint manufacturers, retailers, collection sites, consumers, and the Department of Natural Resources by creating new compliance, fee, reporting, and collection obligations, while also providing liability protections and antitrust exemptions for program participants acting under the statute.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no documented public debate or formal vote sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears structured as an environmental and waste-management policy with consumer-cost implications, and likely would draw support from recycling and environmental advocates while raising questions for manufacturers and retailers about program costs, fee pass-throughs, and administrative burden.
HB 1216 would add section 701.151 to Missouri law and create a statewide extended producer responsibility-style program for architectural paint. It would require producer plans, department approval, annual reporting, administrative fees, collection-site standards, consumer education, and a per-container paint assessment fee to finance collection, reuse, recycling, and disposal of post-consumer paint. It also limits retailer obligations, authorizes enforcement by the Department of Natural Resources, and provides certain liability and antitrust protections for program participants.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate, support, or opposition in the materials. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears to be framed as an environmental stewardship and recycling initiative, which typically attracts support from waste-reduction and environmental interests, while also imposing new costs and compliance duties that could concern paint producers, distributors, and retailers.
The main likely points of contention are the new per-container paint assessment fee, the requirement that producers fund and administer the program, and the extent to which retailers may be affected by fee disclosure or sales restrictions. Another possible issue is the collection-access mandate, including the 15-mile/90% resident standard, which may be difficult or costly to meet in rural areas. Manufacturers may also object to the administrative fee, reporting requirements, and the need to participate in or join a representative organization, while environmental advocates would likely focus on whether the program is strong enough to maximize reuse and recycling.