You have 1 more viewing!

State legislation and regulations have always made business interesting for recyclers, with officials changing the rules for the industry from one year to the next. But Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and other product stewardship programs can put control of the recycling industry into the hands of manufacturers. While in years past these programs usually targeted electronics or difficult to recycle products such as architectural paint and carpet, legislators are now targeting - and threatening - established markets, seeking to rewrite the recycling industry without knowing how it works or consulting the industry itself.

2015 has already seen bills targeting tire recycling (Connecticut SB 869 and Vermont HB 36) and packaging materials (Rhode Island HB 5508), and any product could be subject to similar targeting if a legislator saw fit. Members can use ISRI's State Legislative Tracking System to keep track of these and other EPR legislation; just log in with your ReMA username and password to access the link.

ISRI's EPR Policy Statement opposes government imposed fees and mandates that hold producers financially responsible to collect and recycle certain products, such as vehicles and other products containing metal, such as refrigerators and other appliances, along with, tires, aluminum cans, plastics, paper, and paper packaging that are being manufactured into commodity grade materials and sold into viable, commercial markets without subsidies or noncompetitive, fixed pricing. Thus, while ReMA may not oppose EPR requirements for products that do not have an established recycling market or products with a high cost of recycling, we are against imposing industry-changing requirements on established markets.

This cuts to a core problem with new legislation in the states. If a state has already enacted an EPR program legislators are likely to use that as a model, even if the newly targeted material is vastly different. Case in point: due to a drafting error, the Vermont tire bill actually references the "primary battery stewardship plan" when discussing manufacturer payments. And if the model program was intended to create a market for a product that wasn't recycled before it may contain no reference to recyclers; a serious problem evident in both tire EPR bills.

A primary goal of many EPR proposals is to shift the costs of regulation and enforcement from budget-strapped state and municipal governments to manufacturers. In doing so, legislators may leave recyclers and other parties completely out of the drafting process, unaware that they are handing control of established recycling markets to outside parties who are interested in driving purchases of new products rather than recycling or reuse. This also ignores the fact that EPR and stewardship programs still require diligent government oversight and enforcement to avoid abuse.

Legislators may also seek to drive higher-use recycling by setting production requirements or banning alternative uses such as fuel rather than encouraging the growth of markets for recycled material. While well intentioned, mandating production without considering supply and demand simply distorts or destroys already established markets or leads to stockpiling by companies hoping a market will develop for surplus material. Also, several states have included minimum yearly recycling goals in their EPR programs; these can backfire and become thresholds beyond which manufacturers cease payments for collection and processing, as with the electronics recycling program in New York.

Manufacturers subject to EPR requirements typically select a few larger recyclers that can handle all of their quantities in a given area, picking winners and losers from the current established businesses and controlling the flow of commodity feedstock outside of market forces, both of which seriously threaten the viability of smaller family-owned and operated recycling companies. And these aren't even choices the manufacturers want to make; for their own reasons, manufacturers are often as opposed to EPR and other stewardship programs as recyclers.

Instead of putting manufacturers in control of recyclers, ReMA advocates for standards and specifications that ensure materials are responsibly recycled and that encourage the use of recycled materials and growth of new and established markets. For states dealing with problems such as illegal dumping, uniform licensing or permitting of all participants in the recycling chain, tracking systems to ensure materials reach responsible recyclers, and strict penalties and enforcement are better answers than ignoring the strength, capabilities, and vibrancy of existing scrap recycling industries.

For more information, contact Justin Short.