New York packaging EPR bill stalls

A proposed bill for extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging in the state of New York failed to pass ahead of the conclusion of the legislature’s formal session, which wrapped in the early hours of June 8.

Sponsored by state Sen. Pete Harckham, the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (PRRIA), or S.4246, would require companies to reduce their overall packaging use; improve the recyclability of their products; fund recycling and reuse infrastructure; financially support municipal recycling programs; and reduce toxins in packaging. The bill was passed by the state Senate on June 7, but the state Assembly did not vote on it before the end of the session.

Related: New York lawmakers propose Packaging Reduction and Recycling Act

Similar EPR proposals have failed to advance in the state over the years, but in a news release focused on the bill’s senate passage, Harkham notes the importance of its consideration. He says that in New York, each resident creates, on average, 5 pounds of scrap every day, much of it in the form of packaging and recyclable materials.

According to Harckham’s release, municipalities currently are responsible for the collection, transportation, sorting and processing of scrap and recyclables, and high recycling costs have led to tax increases and recycling limitations. Additionally, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) notes that the state’s 25 municipal solid waste landfills could be full within 15 years.

The release says the bill was crafted in consultation with environmentalists, shop owners, farmers, haulers and garden club members, as well as leaders from large corporations and business groups. The bill’s timeline calls for producers with annual net revenue over $5 million and responsible for more than 2 tons of packaging scrap annually to reduce their packaging by 10 percent of weight within three years and 30 percent of weight within 12 years.

Also, the PRRIA would require specific standards for postconsumer recycled material for packaging. Within two years of the bill’s adoption, glass would need to use at least 35 percent recycled content; paper carryout bags would require 40 percent recycled content; and plastic bags would need to contain at least 20 percent recycled content.

In addition to small businesses with under $5 million in revenue, Harckham’s release says producer exemptions in PRRIA include dairy co-ops with fewer than 50 employees and nonprofits engaged in the delivery of medically tailored meals. Producers that can demonstrate a reduction in packaging up to more than 10 years prior to the bill’s signing would be able to credit those reductions against the legislation’s packaging reduction targets. Exempt products would include medical and supplement product packaging; baby formula; biologics packaging; and packaging for poisons and hazardous materials.

The PRRIA also would have made it mandatory for eligible producers to register with a packaging reduction and recycling organization, or PRRO, within 18 months of the bill’s enactment and create a plan within two years for submission to an advisory council to gauge compliance with the new rules. This plan, submitted to the DEC, would detail efforts to reduce toxic substances in packaging, increase recyclability and support waste reduction. The nonprofit PRRO would have then collaborated with municipalities and private haulers, ensured producers met reduction and recycling targets and collected fees.

A PRRO board would have included stakeholders from companies producing packaging, haulers, recyclers and retailers; environmental justice advocates; labor representatives; government officials; consumer advocates; and public health experts.

Under the proposed legislation, if a producer’s plan was not approved, the bill states that the producer could be subject to penalties for noncompliance—$1,000 per day for each violation. The DEC, Attorney General and recycling inspector general would be authorized to investigate, audit and impose penalties to ensure accountability and compliance.

Packaging material types covered under the bill would include corrugated cardboard, wood, glass, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polystyrene (PS), expanded polystyrene (EPS), bioplastics, plastic film, steel or ferrous, aluminum, tinplate; mixed materials such as laminates and more.

Within two years of the bill’s passage, producers would have been required to eliminate certain “toxic substances” in their packaging, including ortho-phthalates; bisphenols; per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); heavy metals and compounds such as lead, hexavalent chromium, cadmium and mercury; benzophenone and its derivatives; carbon black; polyvinyl chloride (PVC); PS; polycarbonate; and more.

RELATED: Packaging, EPR measures spur opposition in New York

The PRRIA has been met with mixed reactions since its 2023 proposal. Following its senate passage, Judith Enck, former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional administrator and president of Bennington, Vermont-based Beyond Plastics, said the bill would protect people’s health and the environment while saving tax dollars. “There was massive opposition by the plastics, chemical and fossil fuel industries, which was overcome by significant public support for the bill. Immense thanks to Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart Cousins and bill sponsor Sen. Pete Harckham for passing this bill which will reduce plastic pollution in the Hudson River, the Bronx River, Long Island Sound and other cherished water bodies.”

Conversely, the bill was not supported by organizations that included the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), Washington, which says that while it supports efforts to improve recycling, the legislation lacked provisions to ensure it would not negatively impact highly recycled materials like paper and paper-based packaging. In a statement following the end of the legislative session, the AF&PA writes, “We look forward to continuing discussions that ensure paper-based packaging recycling remains a viable and sustainable option for New Yorkers.”

The Albany-based Business Council of New York State Inc., citing concerns of its membership of more than 100 businesses and business groups in an “informal EPR coalition,” also opposed the bill. Concerns have included material and chemical bans; material source reduction mandates; the role of producers in implementing the program; mandated payments for municipal disposal costs; and others.

Additionally, the council called the legislation “overly aggressive” in a June 4 statement and said it would lead to increased consumer costs and reduced consumer choices, along with its compliance cost impact to businesses.

“The bill still falls well short of what is necessary to create an affordable, workable, competitive and effective packaging collection, recycling and material reuse program,” says Ken Pokalsky, vice president of government affairs for the organization, in the statement. “We urge legislators to carefully consider this legislation against well-recognized concerns regarding impacts on consumer costs and consumer choice, as well as on New York businesses and jobs.”