May/June 1993
Recycling-related legislation at the State level continues to focus on market development, funding for public-sector recycling programs, container deposits, and bans on landfilling and incinerating recyclable materials. Many states are also examining bills to curb metal thefts, setting "rates and dates" for mandated recycling programs, and considering methods for handling discarded household batteries. Meanwhile, state and local governments are exploring flow control requirements while the courts debate the constitutionality of the practice.
Here's a look at how some of these proposals are playing out.
Flow control battled across the nation. The idea of flow control originated as a way for governments to meet waste-quantity guarantees in their contracts with landfills and incinerators. Today, however, many states, counties, and municipalities faced with waste-reduction mandates and recycling goals are looking to flow control as a strategy for making public-sector recycling programs profitable.
The use of flow control over recyclables is being challenged, however. In perhaps the most favorable decision for private-sector recyclers, the California Court of Appeals has declared that governments do not have the right to grant exclusive control over recycling. The California decision stems from a case that arose when the city of Rancho Mirage, Calif., signed a contract with Waste Management of the Desert, giving the waste firm exclusive rights to collect, transport, and recycle curbside-collected materials as well as commercial recyclables in the city. A private recycling firm, Palm Springs Recycling Center, continued to honor its contracts to handle the recyclables of several local businesses, prompting Rancho Mirage and Waste Management to file suit against the firm. The Court of Appeals ruled that until recyclables are discarded and set on a curb or otherwise disposed of, they remain the property of the owner. (It also said the city had overreached its police powers in awarding the exclusive contract to Waste Management because the public's health, safety, and welfare were not threatened.)
While this is an important decision, the battle is not over. The California Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case, which will probably be decided within the next year.
In the meantime, efforts are under way to protect recyclers from other flow control efforts. In California, for example, a measure has been introduced that would revise the state's legal definition of solid waste by redefining "discarded" to mean only materials that have been relinquished by the generators for the purpose of disposal. Maryland is also considering legislation that would clarify that a person maintains ownership of recyclables until they are sold, donated, or transferred to another person or placed in a drop-off program. In Florida , a proposed measure would guarantee the rights of commercial generators to sell their source-separated recyclables, as well as those of dealers who purchase, collect, transport, or process these materials. And legislation introduced in New York would exempt from flow control scrap materials of value separated from the waste stream for purposes of recycling.
N.Y. eyes packaging. Last November, Massachusetts voters rejected a ballot proposal that would have required that all packaging sold in the state be reusable, recycled at a certain rate, or meet minimum recycled-content or packaging-reduction rates, but now a similar measure has been introduced in New York. Under the New York proposal, all packaging sold in the state beginning in January 1996 must be "environmentally sound"—defined as reusable, recycled—or widely and practically recyclable. Within five years, in order for packaging to qualify as "recycled," it must include at least 50-percent postconsumer recycled content. The requirements would stiffen further in 2000.
Many expect the outcome of this legislation to determine whether similar laws will fly elsewhere in the Northeast.
States consider deposit laws and advanced disposal fees. Nearly 30 state legislatures have seen measures introduced that would require deposits on beverage containers or expand the list of items currently covered by deposit laws. In Connecticut, however, a proposal by Gov. Lowell Weicker to replace the state's mandatory 5-cent deposit with a 5-cent tax—setting aside one-third of the revenue raised for city and municipality recycling programs—has failed to advance.
Several states, including Florida, are also considering advance disposal fees on containers, with discussion focusing on whether such fees would be collected at the wholesale or retail level and by whom. Others have suggested extending advance disposal fees to products besides containers, including household appliances and batteries. A North Carolina solid waste study committee, for example, recently proposed placing such fees on 32 household hazardous waste items as well as appliances.
Battery recycling proposals expanding. Most states already regulate lead-acid batteries through mandatory take-back programs, deposits, or disposal bans, and some are now evaluating collection plans for household batteries, heretofore largely unregulated. New Jersey, for instance, now requires all manufacturers of mercury-oxide batteries—commonly used in watches, cameras, and hearing aids—to develop collection plans and cover the costs of pickup, transportation, disposal, and recycling. Rather than comply, some manufacturers are reportedly withdrawing their products from the state.
In California, the state Integrated Waste Management Board is looking to overhaul the state's approach to household battery disposal. Under current California law, all batteries are considered hazardous waste, though some batteries have recently been reformulated. The board has called for legislation to support research on household battery collection systems.
Metal theft bills proposed. Although cooperative efforts among processors, utilities, and law enforcement officials to combat theft of scrap metal through fax networks has been effective, some states are still proposing legislation aimed at stopping metal thefts. In Utah, a measure that has cleared both houses would require scrap recyclers to keep detailed records of all scrap purchases (including information about the seller and the amount paid in all transactions). This information would have to be made available to law enforcement officials. Massachusetts and North Carolina are also considering legislation related to metal theft problems.
—Clare Hessler, coordinator of state and local programs for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (Washington, D.C.)
Recycling-related legislation at the State level continues to focus on market development, funding for public-sector recycling programs, container deposits, and bans on landfilling and incinerating recyclable materials. Many states are also examining bills to curb metal thefts, setting "rates and dates" for mandated recycling programs, and considering methods for handling discarded household batteries. Meanwhile, state and local governments are exploring flow control requirements while the courts debate the constitutionality of the practice.