New York lawmakers propose Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act

New York State Sen. Peter Harckham introduced S. 4246, which is called the “Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act,” Feb. 6 to state lawmakers.

The bill would require companies selling, offering for sale or distributing covered packaging materials and products to reduce consumer packaging, improve recycling and recycling infrastructure—including supporting reusable and refill infrastructure. It also requires these companies to financially support municipal recycling programs, reduce toxins in packaging and require producers of products to bear the onus for end-of-life solutions to product packaging.

According to an announcement from the New York State Senate’s website, this bill would require companies with a net annual income of more than $1 million to reduce consumer packaging, improve recycling efforts of their product packaging and help update recycling infrastructure. Companies also would be expected to create and/or maintain reusable and refill infrastructure, support municipal recycling programs financially and reduce toxins in packaging.

“We need to immediately address one of the dire problems of our age—the tremendous amount of waste, much of it recyclable, that we create each day—and which costs taxpayers and municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars in wasted carting and recycling costs,” Sen. Harckham states. “The system is broken. The only way we can begin to mitigate this growing issue of waste pollution and its threat to our natural resources is for the initial producers of this waste to be fully involved with the end-of-life solutions. Right now, municipalities and taxpayers are footing practically all of the enormous cost of product packaging pollution and recycling, and that’s neither fair nor viable in the long run.”

The bill’s timeline calls for producers to reduce packaging by 10 percent of weight within three years, 20 percent by five years, 30 percent by eight years, 40 percent by 10 years and 50 percent by 12 years. Additionally, the bill sets standards for postconsumer recycled material for packaging—glass should contain 35 percent postconsumer recycled content, paper carryout bags should contain 40 percent postconsumer recycled content and plastic bags should contain 20 percent postconsumer recycled content.

Additionally, the bill would make it mandatory for eligible producers of consumer packaging and recyclable materials to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) within one year of the bill’s enactment and create a plan within 18 months for submission to an advisory council to gauge compliance with the new packaging and recycling rules. Once approved, producers would have six months to implement their plans.

According to the legislation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation would determine the effectiveness of each producer’s education and outreach efforts regarding their packaging plan. If a plan is not approved within two years, the producer may be subject to penalties for noncompliance. The bill states that producers in violation of part of the new legislation would be fined $100,000 a day until requirements have been implemented. Each PRO would be required to submit an annual report on packaging and recycling to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Additionally, the legislation focuses on eliminating toxic chemicals and compounds in packaging material. If enacted, the bill would give producers two years to remove certain toxic substances—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, heavy metals, formaldehyde and halogenated flame retardants—from packaging.

Some companies and organizations, including the American Chemistry Council, the Plastics Industry Association, Berry Global and Braven Environmental, have expressed concerns about the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act. A coalition of these businesses and organizations signed a letter Feb. 15, urging state lawmakers to oppose the bill, as these groups say the bill could hurt the state’s economy and pose setbacks specifically to advanced recycling technologies in the state.

Braven, which is based in the state of New York and is among the companies opposed to the bill, has stated that this bill may limit opportunities for advanced recycling technologies in New York. According to Braven co-founder and Chief Operating Officer Michael Moreno, the legislation “excludes materials that contain ‘toxic substances’ from ‘recyclability criteria.’”

He writes, “The legislation defines ‘toxic substance’ as any chemical substance identified by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or other government entity, research university or other scientific entity deemed authoritative on the basis of credible scientific evidence. The bill also allows DEC to periodically add to the banned substances list. This language runs counter to the recently finalized chemical regulation legislation signed into law in New York state that focused on children’s products. … The intent of this legislation is to increase the amount of packaging being recycled, not exclude materials and reduce recycling.”

He adds that the bill would ban packaging containing numerous chemistries designated as ‘toxic substances’ above practical qualification limits. He says it also “specifically excludes advanced recycling from the definition of ‘postconsumer recycled material.’”

According to the Washington-based National Waste & Recycling Association, there are currently three different extended producer responsibility (EPR) proposals in New York state, including this one. NWRA says it does not believe that any of these proposals fully capture all elements necessary to implement a successful statement EPR program for packaging and paper products.

“Harmonizing the concepts reflected in the three legislative proposals will likely be a difficult task, given the complexities and economics of New York’s recycling programs and the conflicting priorities of the stakeholders whose interests will be impacted by the implementation of a statewide EPR program,” NWRA tells Recycling Today. “While EPR may assist New York’s entire recycling system, it will not solve many of the problems negatively effecting statewide recycling rates, such as contamination, confusion over what materials can be recycled and inadequate markets for recycled materials. Moreover, EPR that fails to acknowledge the importance of creating demand for recyclable materials will simply add cost to an already stressed system without achieving net environmental benefits.”

NWRA adds that a “simpler and more effective solution” could be to set postconsumer content standards for materials. “Such standards will create more robust markets for materials recovered through existing recycling programs, thereby supporting their use for manufacturing into new products and packages,” NWRA says.