Testimony of Kevin S. Dietly,
Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works –
July 11, 2002
Good morning Chairman Jeffords, Committee members, and staff. I am Kevin Dietly, a Principal of
Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants in Westford,
Massachusetts. I am speaking to you
today on behalf of the Coalition for Comprehensive Recycling. The Coalition consists of trade associations,
companies, and unions dedicated to promoting state and local comprehensive
recycling programs across the US.
Container manufacturers, union groups, retailers, restaurants, beverage
industry suppliers, and beverage manufacturers of all types are part of this
broad-based coalition.
I appreciate your invitation and the opportunity to address S.2220, the
“National Beverage Producer Responsibility Act of 2002” and the broader issue
of producer responsibility as it relates to the beverage industry.
“Producer responsibility” for beverage industry containers is a new
label for programs that date back as much as 30 years. The core elements of these old programs,
generically referred to as “bottle bills,” are also contained in S.2220 – a
mandatory deposit on selected product containers and a requirement that
manufacturers coordinate the recovery of redeemed containers. Research suggests that these programs:
•
Offer
limited environmental benefits. Because these containers account for a small
part of the solid waste stream and a small part of the litter problem, the
incremental impact of additional container recovery brought about the deposit
program is limited. For example a
nationwide deposit program for beverage containers would likely raise the
nation’s recycling rate by one percent or less.
•
Hurt
existing recycling programs. Creating a duplicate recycling
infrastructure for selected containers draws valuable revenue away from
existing programs. Equipment
utilization rates and operating efficiencies also suffer as consumers pull
materials out of the existing recycling system to put them into the new deposit
system.
•
Raise costs
and consumer prices. Regardless of how it is constructed, a
duplicate system to handle a limited set of containers would impose a high cost
on consumers. Consumers would
ultimately pay for the labor and equipment to operate the recovery system and
lose billions in unclaimed deposits if they chose to continue using their local
recycling programs for deposit containers.
•
Are
inconvenient for consumers and are increasingly unpopular. The
performance of existing deposit programs is in decline. Return rates are at record low levels;
research indicates that consumers prefer more convenient ways to recycle that a
deposit system.
Background
Mandatory deposits on beverage containers are among
the oldest “producer responsibility” programs in existence. The origins of the programs had little to do
with many of the arguments made in their support today. In fact, mandatory deposits were a response
to growing litter problems in the 1960s.
Mandating deposits was also an attempt to force beverage companies to
keep selling their products in refillable bottles, even though refillable packaging was becoming less popular with
consumers. As consumer beverage demand
has grown and evolved, the beverage industry has responded with new types of
products and packaging. And now, 31
years after Oregon’s bottle bill, S.2220 would mandate that the deposit
mechanism be imposed nationwide on virtually all liquids for human consumption.
Of course consumer preferences for certain beverages
and packaging are not the only things that have changed since the 1970s. Many in state and local government as well
as the private sector responded to concerns about litter by developing new
programs for preventing and cleaning up litter of all types. Today states that adopted comprehensive
litter control programs are demonstrably cleaner than those with no litter
control programs and are, on average, cleaner than states with deposit
programs. On the solid waste front,
nothing short of a revolution in recycling has brought residential and
commercial recycling to a prominence never before imagined. Recycling is taught in schools and has taken
root with a new generation. At home,
recycling is now viewed as a basic local service in most communities. Business and commercial recycling continues
to grow and to account for most of the materials diverted from disposal.
Producer responsibility for beverage containers must
be evaluated in the context of the changing consumer market and the alternative
opportunities for waste management and diversion available. The issue is one of comparative costs and
benefits: What does a producer
responsibility system seek to accomplish and what benefits does it offer vs.
the current system? What incremental
cost and economic impact result from the proposed system?
I would like to provide the Committee and staff with
answers to these questions, based on my experience conducting over 20 research
projects and reviewing data on this issue over the past 16 years. During this time I have directed primary
research into the operation and economics of deposit systems in each deposit
state in the US as well as analysis of proposed programs in the US and abroad.
The proposal would impose a federally-mandated fee on
the sale of beverage containers.
Beverage containers are any containers made of glass, metal, plastic,
and/or paper that contain or may contain a beverage. All liquids for human consumption are included except milk and
other dairy products. The primary
impact of the bill would be the establishment of a new materials collection
system to recover beverage containers from the waste stream. This system would substantially duplicate
existing recycling infrastructure created through the investment of public and
private funds over the past 15 years.
Consumers would pay substantially higher prices for everyday products to
support this system. And it is a system
which many find cumbersome and inconvenient.
Our summary of the bill and its key provisions is provided in Attachment
1.
In my testimony I would like to highlight three major
issues:
•
Focus on the
potential benefits of this measure – What the bill seeks to accomplish and what
incremental effect it would have
•
Elaborate on
the new materials recovery system that would be mandated as a result of the
bill – How the system would operate, its costs, and the impact it would have on
existing recycling efforts
•
Discuss the
economic impact of the measure in terms of costs to US consumers – The bill
would have many direct and indirect effects costing consumers billions of
dollars per year
Beverage container materials are already among the
most widely recycled materials in the country.
Even as the beverage industry has responded to consumer demands and
packaging innovations through the years, the new package types (aluminum cans
in the ‘60s, PET in the ‘80s) have become accepted and widely recognized as
recyclable and valuable. Undeniably,
the rate of recovery for beverage container materials as well as other
recyclables has been in decline for the past several years. While many theories have been advanced, it
is clear that the novelty and high profile accorded to recycling programs in
the late 1980s and early 1990s has worn off and the American public needs to be
reminded of the value of recovering certain commodities from the waste stream.
This producer responsibility measure focuses on a
subset of consumer packaging that accounts for approximately 4% of all
municipal solid waste generated each year.
The identification of beverage packaging as the target for the bill is
arbitrary as many other products are packaged in these same materials (metals,
glass, paperboard, plastics), but are not singled out for punitive fees and
special handling.
With a substantial fraction of these containers
already recycled, what is the incremental benefit offered by the proposed
deposit system? Based on current
recycling rates and realistic levels of recovery under the proposed system, we
believe that the recycling rate would probably increase by 1% or less. That is, the national average recycling rate
computed by EPA each year would rise from approximately 28% to 29%. As we will see later, the economic impact
for such a small move would be quite significant.
It is also important to highlight that recovery rates
under existing deposit laws are at all-time lows. The few states that track and publish their return rates are all
on the same downward trajectory (see Exhibit 1). These three states (California, Massachusetts, and New York)
contain three-fourths of those who live with deposit systems in the US. In these states the reported return rate
averages less than 65%.1
Given the broad scope of S.2220 (no existing deposit
program affects as many types of beverages and containers), the expected return
rate would be even lower than that experienced in deposit states today.
In short, mandating a deposit is no guarantee of achieving
the 80% recovery goal in this proposal.
In fact, through their lack of participation, consumers are sending a
plain signal that these programs are inconvenient and unpopular.
Turning to litter control, the traditional rationale
for imposing mandatory deposits on beverage containers, the data indicate
limited potential benefit, especially given the costs required to achieve the
results. Beverage containers consistently
account for less than 9% of roadside litter, measured in visual litter surveys
conducted over the past 25 years. Even
if a deposit measure were capable of eliminating beverage container litter
(which it would not), roadsides, parks, and beaches would still need to be
cleaned periodically and anti-litter education would still be necessary to
address the remaining 91+% of the litter problem.
Proponents of this measure point to a wealth of
benefits ranging from reduced dependence on foreign oil to fewer blown tires on
bicycles, but alternative forms of recycling and litter control achieve these
same benefits (however they may be measured).
The key point is that the forced deposit systems offer only marginal
gains in these various categories.
Further, the real impact of this proposed system cannot be accurately
stated until the net effect of extra trips to redemption centers, new trucks
and traffic, and other environmental consequences of the new redemption and
collection system can be documented.
In sum, the rationale for special treatment for this
small part of the country’s waste stream is questionable at best. Additional recovery of many other materials
in the waste stream could offer equal or greater societal benefit and may very
well be feasible at a substantially lower cost than the scheme envisioned in
S.2220. Singling out beverage
containers for management through a separate system also has significant
economic consequences as we will describe below.
Today most Americans can recycle a wide range of
materials right at the end of their driveways or in their apartment
buildings. About 60% of us have access
to curbside recycling and most of the rest can drop recyclables off where we
dispose of trash or at other convenient locations in our communities. It is no coincidence that at the time the
last forced deposit measure passed in California in 1986, none of us had ever
even heard of curbside recycling.
As we walk through the practical implications of the
new materials recovery system required by this bill, we will highlight the
system’s expense, inconvenience, and adverse impact on the recycling programs
already in place.
All forced deposit programs (which are in place in 10
states containing 29% of the population) mandate the collection of a fee when
the product is sold. The fee is
refundable upon return of the container to a designated “redemption” site which
may be at a retail facility or a separate redemption center. These systems contain myriad complications
and hidden costs, but we will only focus on the major ones at this time.
A forced deposit system requires consumers to
segregate deposit containers from other recyclables or trash, store them, and
return them to a designated location.
Sometimes consumers return containers while on shopping trips, other
times they make special trips, especially to separate redemption centers. For their effort, consumers earn a refund of
the deposit they already paid – no compensation for their time, only the
repayment of money they paid out weeks before when they purchased the beverage
containers.
Consumer marketing and packaging have changed
dramatically in the last 20 years and one of the driving forces behind these
shifts is consumers’ demand for convenience in everyday products. Families with two wage-earners and day-care
deadlines, seniors with limited resources and mobility, and young professionals
are not looking for ways to spend more time managing their trash. The time and effort expended by consumers in
deposit systems represents one of the great unquantified burdens of these
systems. And, as documented earlier,
deposit systems are increasingly unpopular and burdensome to consumers
resulting in lower utilization of the systems and increased incidence of
consumers forfeiting their deposits.
The costliest component of a forced deposit system is
establishing a network of sites to accept returns from consumers. Traditionally, these sites have been
co-located with product retailers forcing food stores into the recovered
materials business, despite the obvious flaws (sanitary and otherwise) with
such a system. Deposit programs have
imposed high costs on stores with notoriously slim margins and particularly
penalized the small and medium-sized stores where redemption costs are the
highest.
In addition to the formidable health and environmental
concerns with handling returned containers in food stores, retailers face
logistical problems finding space for storage, coordinating the sorting and
removal of containers from stores from the many product distributors involved
(especially since S.2220 would include an unprecedented range of products and
containers), and managing containers that would be impractical to redeem
through reverse vending machines (because of their size or material composition).
Either as a complement or alternative to retail
redemption, some forced deposit programs rely on separate redemption centers
where redemption is the sole or primary business. In order for this model to operate, beverage distributors must
subsidize the operation of these facilities through the payment of fees for
each container handled. Not
surprisingly, states with high handling fee subsidies have the most redemption
centers; those with no subsidies have virtually none. (Interestingly, the presence or absence of stand-alone redemption
centers does not appear to affect return rates.)
The cost elements at all redemption sites are
similar: labor to accept containers
from the public or to service machines that accept returns; capital for
constructing new space to accept, sort, and store containers; operating
expenses for leasing and operating machines, increased sanitation, cleaning,
and supplies.
Finally, a system is required to collect returned
containers from all redemption sites, transport them to central locations, and
process the materials into market-ready commodities. The costs include vehicles, drivers, warehouses, processing
equipment, accounting, and administration to track funds including deposits and
refunds. Revenues from the sale of
materials are used to defray collection and processing expenses.
A redemption and collection system in the 40 states
without deposit laws currently would cost about $4 billion annually. This estimate was derived from our 1991
analysis of a national deposit law and was scaled to reflect the number of
containers subject to deposits under S.2220.
Several factors would tend to inflate the cost
further. Two of the most significant
are:
•
We did not
account for the substantially higher costs associated with collecting plastics,
steel, paper, and composite material packages that were not part of the 1991
analysis
•
Some
incremental costs would be incurred in the 10 states that already have
deposits. The first reason for this is
that even for products already covered by the deposit, the return rates are
less than 80%: at least three-fourths
of the population living with deposits have redemption rates below 70%. Therefore the existing deposit system would
not be sufficient to avoid the imposition of the federal system. Second, we know that many products regulated
under S.2220 are outside the existing deposit systems, so manufacturers of
these products would face new requirements in all 50 states.
The bill’s proponents argue that the flexibility
provided to industry in S.2220 should result in operating efficiencies which
would reduce costs below those associated with existing deposit programs. We will address that theory next.
One unique feature of S.2220 is the establishment of a
“performance standard” of an 80% recovery rate for each beverage manufacturer’s
products. Note that this is no
assurance that the rate would be achieved, it is simply a target like a state
recycling goal. This contrasts with the
traditional approach of US forced deposit laws which mandate how the redemption
and collection infrastructure is to operate.
In theory, this approach is intended to provide
flexibility to the beverage industry to develop a redemption and collection
system that is as efficient as possible, thereby reducing costs compared to
traditional deposit systems. In
practice, this deceptively simply standard masks a number of hidden problems.
First, the system design, even for an individual
manufacturer, would be extremely complex.
The bill would require that within six months of passage, each
manufacturer would have established recovery systems covering all states
including commitments from all entities who are to provide both redemption and
collection services. This task would be
daunting for the largest and most sophisticated beverage companies, but may be
nearly impossible for smaller firms in the market. Such a plan would require detailed agreements with hundreds of
retail and other entities within the companies’ marketing areas. The administrative expense of establishing
and maintaining these systems would at least partially offset any operating
efficiencies they might offer.
Another factor that would reduce the hoped-for cost reductions
is the difficulty of cooperation across different beverage companies and
sectors. Literally thousands of
manufacturers sell products that would be subject to this proposal, creating a
patchwork of sales and distribution territories in which their products are
available. The complexity comes in
trying to allocate financial responsibility for a recovery system in which the
portfolio of products available for sale varies literally from store to store. Making the problem worse is the fact that
beverage manufacturers who sell through distributors may not know where their
products are offered for sale.
Integrating sales and market territory information across hundreds or
even thousands of manufacturers would be costly and time-consuming. The obvious alternative is to leave smaller
and regional companies to establish their own systems which would drive up
their cost of recovery substantially.
Third, it is unclear how the federal and existing
state deposit laws could co-exist. For
example, one manufacturer in Oregon may comply with the 80% standard and be
exempt from the federal law. Yet the
redemption system and 5¢ deposit value would conflict with the systems and
deposit value established for other products.
It is likely that the federal system would, in fact, supersede all
existing state programs.
It is clear that this kind of producer responsibility
system would discriminate against small and mid-sized beverage companies who
would lack the resources and volumes to command the attention of larger service
providers (or “agents” as they are called in the bill). The cost and scale disadvantages faced by
these beverage companies would put them at a distinct disadvantage to their
larger competitors. This would be a
particularly acute problem for small regional companies such as dairies (who
produce much more than just milk products), water, and juice manufacturers.
In sum, the argument that a performance standard will
reduce costs needs to be carefully evaluated in light of the realities of the
product manufacturing and distribution system in place for beverages, the
complex and unprecedented range of products subject to deposits in S.2220, and
the potential for anti-competitive outcomes that disadvantage small and
mid-sized producers. As we can observe
from the unique California deposit program, administrative complexity can
impose significant costs that defeat the hoped-for operating efficiencies of a
centralized system.
The imposition of a national deposit system for
beverage containers cannot be evaluated without considering the implications
for the vast recycling infrastructure that has been developed over the past 15
years. State and local governments have
invested billions of dollars to build recycling collection and processing
capacity for household and commercial recyclables. A deposit system would seek
to pull commodities out of that existing system and transfer them to a new
handling system, outlined above. Much of
the material that would be recovered under the system proposed by S.2220 is
material that is already being recovered through taxpayer-funded programs in
communities all over the US. While we
would argue that there is no economic rationale for that shift, there is also a
question of whether there is any justification for the federal government to
mandate that policy.
Beverage container material, especially aluminum and
the most common plastics, provide significant value to recycling programs. Research has indicated that beverage
container material accounts for between 40% and 70% of revenues earned from the
sale of residential recyclables. Of
course scrap revenue does not fund the cost of recycling programs, but it does
offset operating costs significantly.
Individual communities and states have examined the
implications of container deposit programs on their recycling economics and
documented the harmful effect of a deposit system. The adverse impact of deposits was a critical factor in the
repeal of the Columbia, Missouri municipal deposit ordinance in early April of
this year. The City’s Public Works
Department computed positive benefits from eliminating deposits and has already
seen historically high recovery levels through the City’s curbside program
since repeal. For states without
deposits, adding them would pull revenue and material out of the existing
programs. In Pennsylvania, for example,
recyclers would lose over $30 million in annual revenue if a deposit system
were implemented. A similar analysis in
New Hampshire estimated the loss to community recycling programs at $3 million
per year.
In addition to the adverse impact on revenue, deposits
would decrease the utilization of existing recycling infrastructure and could
jeopardize the viability of programs to recycle other containers not subject to
deposits. Pulling deposit material out
of existing recycling programs would do little or nothing to reduce costs of
providing recycling in those communities.
The same equipment would still be required, the same trucks and drivers
following the same routes – they simply would be collecting fewer containers
than they do now. (Of course many
consumers would continue to recycle deposit containers through curbside bins as
they do now, so some deposit material would remain in the system.)
There is, however, a risk that removing the beverage
containers from the system could irreparably damage the viability of container
recycling. Communities may find that
the remaining containers are simply too expensive to collect for recycling,
especially given the greatly reduced revenue.
Though the container recycling issue in New York City is complex and
politically charged, it is clear that one factor in the high cost of container
recycling there is the lack of valuable beverage containers in the stream: containers that are diverted to the deposit
system instead.
The relationship between state and local governments
on solid waste issues has always been tense because of the difficulty of
crafting state-wide or regional policies that reflect the diverse local
circumstances faced by towns and cities.
Strong justification is therefore required to shift that policy-making
role up to the federal level and to mandate a new system to overlay the
recycling systems built with taxpayer and ratepayer funds over the last 15
years. In our view, this shift is
ill-advised and certainly not justified by the limited, potential benefits
offered by S.2220.
Whether it is called a producer responsibility
measure, an anti-litter policy, or a bottle tax, mandatory deposit programs
impose a substantial cost on consumers.
Under this proposal, the range of products and consumers affected would
be unprecedented. More beverages and
types of beverage containers would be included in this program than in any
other deposit program. That means that
the economic impact of the measure would affect every US consumer – the effects
would not be limited to those who consume only certain products.
•
Consumers
pay with their time. We have already described how time-consuming
a deposit system is for consumers.
Separating containers from other recyclables; making a trip to a
designated location to redeem bottles, cans, and cartons; and waiting in line
for workers or machines to accept containers takes time that consumers just
don’t have. It is hard enough to get
most consumers to recycle at all let alone recycle one set of materials at home
and haul another set to a redemption center.
Consumers who live with both systems prefer
comprehensive recycling. While deposit
law proponents cite high popularity for deposits in the ten states (e.g.,
“Do you like the deposit law?”), when asked if they prefer recycling at the
curb or through the deposit system, consumers prefer the comprehensive option
2:1.
•
Consumers
pay for the system. Earlier we provided a rough estimate of $4
billion as the cost of a national system to redeem and collect beverage
containers captured by S.2220. This
system must be developed by the companies that manufacture and distribute these
products. Ultimately, it is the
consumers of these and other food products that will bear the cost of the
system. (The beverage industry will
suffer its own setbacks in the form of lower sales resulting from higher prices
charged for its products.) But in the
long-run, consumers will pay billions of dollars in higher prices for these and
other products.
•
Consumers
pay the unclaimed deposit tax. The decline in return rates in deposit
states is proof that for many consumers their time is worth more to them than
the value of the refund. These
consumers are making a rational trade-off between the refund and the time it
takes to obtain it. For them, the
deposit simply functions as a tax on the price of these products.
Consumers who choose to
support their local recycling programs or simply prefer the convenience of
curbside recycling also forfeit their deposits, even though they are still
recycling the containers.
For at least one-third of consumers in deposit states2 the deposit functions like a tax. We estimate that the unclaimed deposit tax
would equal at least $4.8 billion per year, just in the 40 states without
deposits now. As noted earlier, the
federal program would likely be in force in several if not all of the existing
deposit states as well since they are not achieving the target 80% recovery
rate.
We have only estimated the 40-state cost of the
redemption system and the unclaimed deposit, but the combined annual cost to
consumers from these two elements of the proposal is $8.8 billion. If we factored in the value of consumers’
time to redeem containers, the cost would be substantially higher.
Beyond the direct impact on consumers, the affected
businesses also suffer from being singled out in this legislation. Higher actual and perceived prices would
reduce sales of soft drinks, juice, water, beer, tea, and other products. This not only affects manufacturers, but
their suppliers and retailers as well.
In the soft drink industry, for example, each dollar of output by
bottlers produces another $2.70 in economic activity elsewhere in the economy.
The bill would also have an adverse effect on tax
collections at all levels of government.
The soft drink industry pays $17 billion dollars in federal and state
taxes each year; tax payments would drop as a result of lower sales and
profits. The tax implications of this
bill would be particularly pronounced on alcoholic beverages, where excise
taxes represent a much higher share of product price than for soft drinks.
Beverage companies, retailers, and their suppliers
would also experience job losses as a result of the higher prices and lower
sales. A University of Kentucky
analysis, for example, projected 1,200 lost jobs in Kentucky alone as a result
of a more limited deposit proposal considered in that state.
Building separate recycling systems for not just
certain types of materials, but for selected products packaged in those
materials is not a rational direction for US solid waste policy. Labor and equipment for handling waste are
costly; industry professionals have long recognized that efficiency results
from minimal handling of materials and from large scale operations. Recycling is no different, especially for
commodities that are widely recycled, have existing markets, and pose no
special environmental hazards. Recycling
programs that target multiple materials, minimize handling, and maximize volume
are likely to be the most successful and efficient way to keep waste out of
landfills and incinerators. Providing
disincentives to disposal such as pay-as-you-throw trash programs is a useful
supplement – in fact it is the single most effective policy instrument to
increase waste diversion.
Decision making on appropriate waste management
systems is best kept at the local and regional levels where demographics,
market conditions, and the wishes of taxpayers and voters can dictate
policy. Imposing a costly new system on
top of existing recycling infrastructure means higher costs for US
consumers. Enhancing the systems in
place to make better use of existing infrastructure is a far better use of time
and resources directed at recycling.
Recovery rates for many materials have slipped,
largely as a function of decreased education and promotion about the value of
recycling. On the litter front,
consumers, especially those most prone to littering, could use more frequent
and directed reminders to obey the law and not litter.
The soft drink industry has long advocated and
supported comprehensive and sustainable programs to recycle and reduce
litter. Spending consumers’ money to
build a massive new beverage container recycling system is simply
wasteful. To provide perspective on the
magnitude of the new costs, the $8.8 billion in new consumer costs would be
sufficient to fund the curbside collection of nearly 60 million tons of
material – about 25% of the entire municipal solid waste stream.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and present this testimony.
Reference: S. 2220 (Jeffords); April 22, 2002
•
Imposes a 10¢
refund value on all beverage containers offered for sale except those offered
for on-premises sale
•
Beverages
include alcoholic or nonalcoholic carbonated or noncarbonated liquids for human
consumption except milk or dairy products.
•
Beverage
containers are “primarily constructed of metal, glass, plastic, or paper (or a
combination of those materials;” have a capacity of not more than one gallon;
contain or may contain a beverage; and are offered for sale.
•
Requires that
the refund value be adjusted every 10 years based on CPI changes, with changes
rounded to the nearest 5¢ increment
•
Beverage
manufacturers, distributors, or their agents must:
•
Submit a plan
for EPA approval outlining an industry-devised system to collect, transport,
reuse, and recycle beverage containers
•
Collect the
refund value from customers
•
Label beverage
containers with the refund value
•
Submit to EPA
for public release an audited annual report of the return rate for beverage
containers and an accounting of deposits collected and refunds paid
•
Pay an
undetermined fee to EPA to administer the program
•
Plans must be
submitted for EPA review within 180 days of enactment. Plans must contain:
•
Brands included
in the plan
•
Agreements with
entities that will accept container returns and pay refunds
•
Explanation of
how consumers will be provided with “convenient” return sites
•
Ways in which
the recovery rate for containers will reach 80% in two years
•
How the
returned containers would be managed
•
Additional
requirements applicable to beverage manufacturers, distributors, or their
agents:
•
Prohibited from
disposing of any deposit container in a landfill or incinerator
•
EPA may require
payment of unclaimed deposits to states in which containers were sold if 80% of
containers are not recovered.
•
If operating in
existing deposit states and achieving an 80% recovery rate, the federal program
would not apply in those states
•
Scope
•
Beverages: includes all liquids for human consumption –
well beyond the scope of any existing deposit program. Even the Maine law which is the most
inclusive deposit program in the country excludes milk and dairy products as
well as products such as soups, broths, flavorings, and infant formula.
•
Beverage
Containers: metal, glass, plastic,
paper and combinations of those extend the scope of the bill well beyond any
current deposit program. Paperboard
cartons and drink boxes would be included.
Any container than may contain a beverage is subject to the law which
would include plastic and paper cups (filled or not, sealed or not) and
glassware. So, a sleeve of 100 paper
cups in the grocery store would have a $10 deposit.
•
Refund
•
10¢, equal to
the Michigan deposit, the highest in the US.
The deposit would increase 5¢ every ten years if the annual CPI change
averaged 2.3% (a likely scenario).
•
Collected on
all containers sold and refunded to consumers at designated redemption sites,
as noted below
•
Manufacturers’
responsibility
•
As a
“manufacturers’ responsibility” bill, the measure leaves the development and
operation of a system to redeem and handle returns entirely to the
manufacturers, distributors, and importers.
•
While this is
done in the guise of appearing reasonable and flexible, it is borrowing from
the European Green Dot system and other similar efforts to force the
establishment of an industry-financed, reverse distribution system for
products. The electronics industry is
currently involved in a similar issue.
•
The logical
extension of such an approach is a network of producer-backed waste hauling
operations, duplicating the services provided by thousands of local governments
and private haulers throughout the country.
•
Redemption
system
•
No requirements
are imposed on product retailers unless they are part of the system proposed by
the industry.
•
Beverage
companies must devise a plan, subject to EPA approval, that will achieve 80%
recovery of deposit containers within two years. The use of the deposit mechanism is mandated, but the operation
of the system and compensation for redemption sites (i.e., a handling
fee) are not prescribed in the bill.
•
Developing such
a system for all products nationwide would represent a significant
undertaking. Many small producers would
be obliged to pay any price in order to get access to a system set up by larger
companies. The impact would be
extremely anti-competitive and anti-consumer.
•
Exemptions
•
No state
program affects this range of products and containers, so no state could
achieve the 80% level required for exemption from the federal
requirements. Companies would therefore
have to develop nationwide plans for redemption.
•
Even if only
conventional beverage containers were affected, most deposit states don’t
achieve an 80% rate anyway.
•
Disposal
prohibition
•
Many of the
proposed deposit containers have limited recycling opportunities (e.g.,
composite material packages, certain plastic bottles and paper cartons, paper and
plastic cups). It is unclear what the
fate of these materials would be if they were collected but not be disposed.
•
Collection of
these materials would contaminate loads of more valuable commodities and would
result in expensive collection of materials for which no practical use could be
found.
1
The 60% rate in California also includes containers returned through curbside
programs (for which consumers do not get a refund). Without these curbside bottles and cans, only about half of
deposit containers sold in California are actually returned for refunds.
2 The rate of consumers who do not earn
refunds from deposits they pay is probably much higher because many donate
their containers to charity or leave them for scavengers or others to redeem.