Recycling Policy | Zero Waste ·
Back to Blog
We are halfway through 2024, and many state legislative sessions have wrapped up. With increased public awareness of the growing plastic pollution crisis, there continues to be considerable movement on bills to reduce waste, support reuse infrastructure, strengthen recycling programs, and create better solutions for our materials economy. Unfortunately, we continue to see efforts from industry to advance false solutions to address this crisis.
AMBR advocates for policies that build transparent and authentic recycling systems to better protect people and the planet, and serve as a bridge toward a zero-waste future. Here’s a snapshot of policies across the country that we’ve been watching this past legislative session:
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Paper and Packaging Policies
AMBR supports well-designed extended producer responsibility (EPR) for paper and packaging that reduces problematic and unnecessary packaging, supports investments in our reuse and recycling systems, ensures equitable and convenient access to recycling, and drives more sustainable product design. EPR policies require product manufacturers to pay for the costs to take back, recycle, or properly dispose of their products and packaging. In locations where EPR policies are not in place, governments and taxpayers cover these costs or recycling programs either do not exist or have inequitable access. Without EPR, communities and the environment absorb the externalized health and climate costs of toxic and wasteful packaging and products.
Four states, California, Colorado, Maine, and Oregon, are currently deep in the implementation phase of their new EPR laws. About 10 states introduced EPR bills this past year, including Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington. Minnesota is the only state to pass EPR for packaging this year.
Minnesota: This spring, Minnesota became the fifth state to pass EPR for packaging with AMBR’s founding member, Eureka Recycling, playing a leading role in advancing the legislation. The bill requires that all packaging sold into the state must be reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2032. Producers, as members of a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), are required to pay fees based on the amount and type of packaging sold into the state. Those fees will be used to cover the cost of implementing the program, including covering at least 90% of the cost of collecting and processing residential and some commercial recyclables. Much of the details of the program, including the statewide targets, materials on the statewide recyclables list, and how service providers will be reimbursed, will be informed by the initial needs assessment and determined through agency rulemaking.
AMBR’s founding member, Eureka Recycling, successfully strengthened the bill language in Minnesota. This included ensuring that the program will build upon existing recycling infrastructure, include both residential and commercial packaging, drive higher post-consumer recycled content in the state, prioritize reduction, and hold producers accountable for their packaging choices while ensuring that the public has a voice in the implementation process. Learn more.
New York: While New York’s bill did not make it past the finish line, there was increased momentum this year. The bill passed out of the Senate but stalled in the Assembly. Advocates worked tirelessly to ensure the bill would significantly reduce waste, particularly plastic packaging. The proposed bill, the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act, would have reduced plastic packaging by 30% over 12 years and all materials would have been required to meet a recycling rate of 70% by 2050. Additionally, the bill prohibited some of the most harmful chemicals in packaging, prohibited chemical recycling from being included in the definition of recycling, set strong reuse targets, and established a new Office of Inspector General to enforce the act. Learn more.
Massachusetts: The Massachusetts legislative session extends through November and there are a number of bills that continue to advance. While a full EPR for packaging program has yet to move forward, a study has been included in the larger Plastic Reduction Act. The bill, which has passed the Senate, will create a commission to study EPR for packaging, paint, mattresses, and electronics. The bill also prohibits carry-out plastic bags at retail stores statewide and requires stores to charge 10 cents for recycled paper bags, five cents of which will be allocated to environmental protection measures. Additionally, the legislation prevents plastic utensils and straws from automatically being given to consumers, prohibits single-use plastic bottle purchases by state agencies, and creates a statewide program for recycling large plastic objects such as car seats.
Deposit Return Systems
Deposit return systems (DRS) or bottle bill policies provide an unparalleled solution to reaching high recycling rates for aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers. AMBR supports state-level policies to develop new and expand existing bottle deposit policies. These policies are one of the top three most influential and important policy tools for increasing recycling rates and the use of recycled content in new products and packaging. Across the country, we saw a flurry of proposals for new DRS or bottle bill programs and bills that would modernize existing systems, like what we are seeing in Massachusetts.
Rhode Island: Rhode Island was one of a number of states to introduce a DRS bill. While it did not pass into law, we expect advocates to take up the bill again next year. The proposed bill, HB8312, would require a 10-cent deposit on beverage containers. However, that amount could increase to 15 cents if the PRO does not meet redemption targets for three consecutive years. After the bill’s effective date, the redemption rate targets are 70% after two years, 75% after four years, 85% after six years, and 90% after eight years. The bill also includes reuse targets—at least 15% after seven years and 25% after twelve years. Recycled content rates must be met seven years after the act takes effect and are set by material type—glass containers must be at least 35% recycled material, PET containers 45%, HDPE and PP containers 25%, and aluminum containers 50%. Additionally, material recovery facilities (MRFs) are compensated for containers that are recycled through their facility—receiving at least 60% of the refund value. Learn More.
Massachusetts: Massachusetts has had a bottle bill program since 1982 and is working to modernize it. The Senate included an amendment to their bottle bill program as part of a larger climate bill. The proposal would increase deposit values to 10 cents, increase handling fees for retailers and redemption centers, and include more types of beverages in the program—exempting only medicines and baby formula. In an effort to support scaled reuse systems, the provision also calls for a study of reuse and refill systems.
Electronic Waste and Batteries
As recyclers, we are steadily seeing an increase in fires in our facilities due to batteries in electronics that have been incorrectly disposed of in residential recycling carts. As we’ve seen at recycling facilities around the country, these fires can very quickly spread to incredibly flammable plastic and paper streams. The fires and the toxic smoke associated with them are dangerous to our team members’ health and costly to our operations. A recent study from the National Waste & Recycling Association and Resource Recycling found that the rate of catastrophic losses due to fires has risen by 41% over the last five years, causing facility insurance costs to increase by up to 50 times. With the increase in battery related fires impacting recycling and waste facilities, there is increased federal and state attention on the issue. Last year, Washington State passed a comprehensive battery EPR law, and this year we have seen Illinois follow suit.
Illinois: The Illinois Portable Battery Stewardship Act requires companies selling batteries into the state to join a stewardship organization and pay the necessary fees. The organization would be required to cover the cost of collecting covered batteries and public education. Additionally, the stewardship organization would need to meet specific targets. Most targets will be set in the stewardship plan, but the Act calls for a recycling rate of at least 60% for rechargeable batteries and at least 70% for primary batteries. Learn more.
Toxics in Packaging and Products
Toxic substances used in plastic packaging pose serious risks to public health both during the initial product creation and use, and in the secondary use of this plastic as recycled content. Once toxic chemicals are introduced into the plastic stream, they stay within the stream as the material is recycled. This is particularly problematic as toxic chemicals used in plastic packaging restrict the ability of those plastics to be recycled into new products that have food-contact applications. Most current proven recycling processes do not remove toxic chemicals from materials, and thus their health impacts are perpetuated. This challenge undermines the recycling system as it serves as a vital link in a circular economy.
California: California is considering a bill (AB2761) that would phase out the use of toxic “forever” poly- and per- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) in plastic packaging. PFAS, PVC, and PVDC all pose threats to human health throughout their lifecycle from production to disposal. It passed the Assembly but continues to work through the Senate. Learn more.
Chemical Recycling
The petrochemical industry has successfully exempted “chemical recycling” facilities from solid waste regulations in 24 states. Due in large part to lobbying from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), these states instead classify “chemical recycling” as manufacturing, allowing facilities to avoid the environmental oversight that comes with solid waste facilities and making them eligible for taxpayer subsidies. While this year saw a continued push from the ACC, many states are proactively working to fight back against this false “solution” greenwashing.
Maine: This past session, a new law was enacted in Maine to address chemical or advanced recycling. The law prevents advanced or chemical recycling facilities from skirting the state’s environmental regulations and prohibits these facilities from being considered recycling. Additionally, the law prevents the development of chemical recycling facilities unless those facilities can demonstrate that they recycle at least 50% of the plastic feedstock. Learn more.
Colorado: With leadership from AMBR’s founding member, Eco-Cycle, Colorado passed a bill preventing chemical recycling from being classified as manufacturing and from using taxpayer dollars to fund plastic-to-fuel projects. Unfortunately, the bill was vetoed by the Governor, despite many compromises made in amending the original bill. While this is a setback, Eco-Cycle and its allies remain firmly committed to preventing taxpayer dollars from incentivizing polluting projects perpetuating the climate crisis and plastic pollution and further burdening already disproportionately affected communities. Learn more.
These legislative efforts signal a growing recognition of the urgent need for comprehensive, effective, and proven solutions to our waste, plastics, and recycling challenges. By holding producers accountable and ensuring transparent, equitable systems, we can move closer to a Zero Waste future. We must continue to advocate for policies that address the root causes and full lifecycles of waste and pollution.