If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now
packaging and paper waste

Does Packaging and Paper Need Extended Producer Responsibility Laws?

packaging and paper wasteMarket-based recycling could improve recycling rates at similar costs to current programs, while taking the financial burden for administration off cash-strapped local governments, according to a study by Recycling Reinvented.

The cost-benefit analysis examines the projected outcomes of a model extended producer responsibility (EPR) system for packaging and printed paper, using Minnesota as the model state. It’s based on an analysis of waste stream data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, costs and efficiencies of existing local programs, the outcomes of similar programs, and the successes of best-practice programs throughout Minnesota.

The model system scales up best practices around the state, such as implementing single stream recycling statewide, expanding curbside recycling to nearly 90 percent of households, establishing a more robust away-from-home recycling program and optimizing processing infrastructure to leverage existing investments in state-of-the-art technology.

The data shows that such a model could increase the recycling rate of packaging and printed paper by 32 percent, while efficiencies and savings from a statewide standardization of material collection and technology keep the cost per ton of recycled material equivalent to today’s system.

Recycling Reinvented and its partners, which include Nestlé Waters North America and New Belgium Brewing Company, argue for a business-led EPR system because they say companies have a significant financial interest in having PPP recycled in greater quantity and quality but are hampered from impacting change due to the fractured, locally driven system that currently exists.

In May 2013, Connecticut passed the nation’s first-ever EPR bill for mattresses that supporters say will save local governments about $1.3 million and increase recycling opportunities for businesses. Rhode Island passed the second two monts later.

To date, EPR legislation has focused on products that are hazardous or have low recycling rates, such as batteries, mercury switches, fluorescent lamps, writes Laura M. Thompson, director of sustainable development and technical marketing at Sappi Fine Paper North America, in a September 2013 Environmental Leader column.

While there are efforts underway to enact EPR laws for packaging and printed materials in the US and Canada, it is arguable that we don’t need EPR for paper products, Thompson writes. The recovery rate for paper has exceeded 60 percent since 2009. And nearly 70 percent of US households have access to paper recycling facilities.

Operationalizing EHS Management: Bridge the Gap from Strategy to Execution
Sponsored By: LNS Research

  
Choosing the Correct Emission Control Technology
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems

  
Packaging LED & Advanced Rooftop Unit Control (ARC) Retrofits for Maximum Performance
Sponsored By: Transformative Wave

  
Environmental Leader Product and Project Awards 2017
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader

  

3 thoughts on “Does Packaging and Paper Need Extended Producer Responsibility Laws?

  1. EPR has yet to be fully formulated, adopted and implemented for other products. One result is a byzantine web of state, national and international schemes. In short, it is far too soon to conclude that EPR is THE solution for increasing recycling rates and for building a market for the resuse of those products.

  2. There are 76 EPR laws passed in the US on 10 products in 32 states. Last year, 9 EPR laws were passed, the most ever in one year. These laws are passed on toxic products (electronics, thermostats, and lamps), as well as non-toxic products (e.g., mattresses, carpet, and latex paint). When brand owners of packaging are ready to discuss facts and data with all stakeholders, and not just those they hand pick, we will actually get to the place of developing real solutions, and yes, those solutions are likely to include EPR.

  3. Future Extended Producer Responsibility Laws should include more emphasis on reuse rather than recycling. For instance cardboard box reuse is a relatively simple scheme to initiate, it is financially and environmentally beneficial. Legislation to encourage reuse could divert millions of tonnes of material from expensive recycling processes, reducing the demand for energy and resource.

Leave a Comment