Washington EPR proposal stalls, AF&PA responds

The Washington Recycling and Packaging Act (WRAP Act) failed to advance this week, missing the state legislature’s March 8 deadline to pass bills in their house of origin, and the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) has applauded the decision.

The Washington-based organization hosted a news briefing Wednesday coming out against the proposal it says could have undercut investments the paper industry already is making in recycling infrastructure.

RELATED: Shadow of doubt

“Paper recycling is a proven model that works,” AF&PA Vice President of Industry Affairs Terry Webber said in a statement Thursday in response to the proposal stalling. “We want to continue paper recycling’s success and we support data-driven policymaking that ensures the continued success of highly recycled materials.”

The WRAP Act sought to create a producer responsibility program that would have required consumer products producers to fund statewide residential recycling services for plastic packaging and paper products. The proposal also included the creation of a bottle return system as well as recycled-content mandates.

Because the AF&PA viewed the proposal as a “one-size-fits-all,” approach—lumping paper and plastic products in the same group—the concern was that any fees assessed through the legislation would not specifically target paper products and improving paper recycling infrastructure.

“The focus instead needs to be on a lot of the ‘wishcycling’ consumers do—putting products in the bin that don’t belong there and then it gets to the MRF and the MRF has a difficult time processing and it ends up in bales as contamination,” Webber said during the briefing. “In our mind, a smart policy approach to this is really focusing on … those materials that are flowing through the bin that end up as contamination or a problem for the processing infrastructure.”

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation has gained traction in the United States. Maine was the first state to approve EPR legislation for packaging in 2021, while Oregon, Colorado and California have since followed. This year, New Jersey and Tennessee have joined the state of Washington in introducing their own EPR proposals.

Similar to its opposition to the proposed legislation in Washington, the AF&PA, along with the National Waste & Recycling Association, opposed the legislation in Colorado, while organizations like the Product Stewardship Institute and the Association of Plastic Recyclers voiced support.

“A key success metric that’s important for lawmakers to keep in mind when crafting any recycling legislation is that paper recycling rates have grown over time and remain consistently high—meeting or exceeding 63 percent since 2009,” Webber said.

According to the AF&PA’s most recent data, 68 percent of all paper consumed in the U.S. in 2021 was recycled—the highest rate achieved to date. The organization also reports a 91.4 percent recycling rate for old corrugated containers—a statistic Webber said EPR legislation would have a difficult time improving on.

“We have a measurable track record of success and making paper and paper-based packaging more circular and sustainable through market-based approaches,” Webber said.

“Paper is a highly recycled material that boasts widely accessible collection programs and robust and resilient end markets. EPR policies must be carefully designed to avoid creating fees or mandates that could disrupt efficient and successful paper recycling streams and direct private-sector funds away from investment in paper recycling mill infrastructure. Instead, EPR policy should be applied as a solution for hazardous or hard to handle materials with low recycling rates.”