Maine Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources hears testimony on EPR legislation

ISRI testifies in opposition to proposed Maine EPR legislation.

MRF

Proposed legislation in Maine, H.P. 1500, or “An Act To Support and Increase the Recycling of Packaging,” would establish an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program that would make packaging material producers responsible for paying fees to municipalities based on the type, amount and design of their packaging through a third-party stewardship organization. If passed, Maine would be the first state in the U.S. to enact EPR legislation for packaging. 

This bill would establish a stewardship program for packaging to be operated by a stewardship organization contracted by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection following a competitive bidding process, according to legislation. Packaging producers would pay into a fund managed by the stewardship organization based on the amount of packaging by weight they sell, offer for sale or distribute for sale in Maine.

Producers could wholly or partially offset this payment obligation by “implementing independent programs to recycle packaging of the same material type for which they have a payment obligation and can further reduce their payment obligation by reducing the amount of packaging they sell, offer for sale or distribute for sale in the state, by redesigning that packaging to make it more valuable as a recyclable material or by meeting other program incentive requirements,” the bill notes.

According to the legislation, small producers could receive an exemption if they grossed less than $ 1 million in revenue, used less than 1 ton of packaging total for products distributed within the state or had all of its sales within the state at a single point of retail during the previous calendar year.

The stewardship organization would use the producer payments to reimburse eligible municipalities for certain recycling and waste management costs they incur. The municipalities must provide the stewardship organization with certain data regarding these costs. The legislation notes that recycling-related reimbursements would be based on the median recycling costs incurred by similarly situated municipalities, while disposal-related reimbursements would be based on per capita disposal costs.

Under the legislation, the stewardship organization would be authorized to use producer payments that remain after reimbursements have been paid “to cover operational costs for the program, department fees, investments by the organization in education and infrastructure aimed at improving recycling outcomes in the state and funding for the Maine Solid Waste Diversion Grant Program.”

The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), Washington, testified in front Maine’s Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Feb. 26 in opposition to the legislation.

ISRI says that while it is “supportive of LD 2104’s goals to support and increase the recycling of packaging,” Danielle Waterfield, the association’s senior director of government relations and assistant general counsel, raised concerns with the approach chosen in the bill to address the underlying challenges posed by packaging in the residential stream. She also provided “alternative solutions that would prove more effective in increasing recycling,” ISRI says.

In its written testimony, ISRI states, “The producer responsibility plan in LD 2104 essentially amounts only to a tax on consumer goods companies, manufacturers, distributors and retailers in order to fund municipal waste disposal and recycling and it fails to address multiple critical pressure points in the residential recycling infrastructure. The legislation also contains systematic flaws in its definitions, market fallacies, and unrealistic assumptions to determine whether packaging is readily recyclable.”

In a news release about its opposition to the legislation, the association says it “remains ready to work with legislators on the key issues, offering valuable insights from the recyclers who process the material this bill impacts. This includes the understanding of what makes for successful recycling: market demand for the recyclable material combined with minimal contamination in the stream of recyclables that flow into the system. Effective strategies for increasing the recycling for packaging must address these two issues.”

According to the association’s written testimony, “LD 2104 contains a number of flaws and notable fallacies in many of the core components of the legislation reflecting a lack of understanding of recycling markets and the current recycling infrastructure. The vast majority of the recyclable material that flows through today’s recycling infrastructure does so without any problems, and is transformed by recyclers into clean, high quality, commodity-grade product.”

ISRI notes that for recycling infrastructure to be successful, end-market demand must exist for the materials recovered, adding that “the supply of material flows into the stream whether there is a market for it or not” in residential recycling programs. “This sets the residential recycling infrastructure apart from commercial and industrial recycling in the United States and that is why it demands a unique approach.”

In its written testimony, the association states, “ … there are an increasing number of certain materials and consumer products entering the residential recycling stream for which commodity markets do not currently exist, or the markets may be regional in nature and not be economically viable at the point of collection. There are also some packaging materials for which no technological process has been developed to handle.”

ISRI mentions that some recycling programs are  “driven by government mandates or sustainability goals that are not supported solely by market values, and certain materials that were previously economical to recycle may no longer have viable end markets due to major changes in global commodity markets. These conditions create items that are difficult to recycle.”

The association suggests that “increasing recycling requires collaboration with multiple stakeholders on the various pressure-points within the residential recycling stream, not the least of which are those operating recycling processing facilities,” adding that it is “disappointed with what seems to be a lack of consultation thus far with those recycling enterprises.”

In its testimony, ISRI says it “does not support product stewardship policies that disrupt the current recycling infrastructure, such as extended producer responsibility programs that either target, include or disrupt the recycling of materials or products that are being successfully recycled and consumed in existing markets.” 

ISRI’s testimony continues, “However, while ISRI agrees EPR may be appropriate in some limited cases and on a temporary basis to help municipalities with the costs of handling these materials until end markets develop, LD 2104 does not include the clarity necessary for an effective producer responsibility program. As it currently stands, the legislation could very well collapse under the weight of this uncertainty.”

ISRI’s full testimony is available here.

Get curated news on YOUR industry.

Enter your email to receive our newsletters.

Loading...