I received a flurry of emails in response to my last column on EPR (Extended Provider Responsibility). There was a lot of pushback and negative commentary. “There is no way EPR will work.” “Our company will not absorb additional costs,” and, “We already have enough problems passing on additional costs to our customers, and now you’re suggesting they will charge us back for the cost of recycling.” 

“This will create a monstrous problem and we’ll be squeezed on both sides, chargeback, plus having to absorb additional costs,” was another one. “EPR is fine if it doesn’t affect our business.” 

Finally, one that really irked me, and Mr. Editor pardon me if you lose another reader, “Leave EPR in Canada and Europe. We have plenty of holes to fill in North America.” 

The writer should be tarred and feathered for that comment, in my view.

I was astonished by the anger and tone of some of these notes. Most of them were unnamed, which didn’t give me a fair chance at a response. Am I hearing that the majority of L&NW readers don’t support the concept of “you make it and it’s yours through end of life?”  Who, therefore, has the responsibility of byproduct generation? Frankly, our problem is analogous to nuclear energy: efficient, carbon neutral, but generates waste. Pressure sensitive technology is efficient, and based on LCA studies, is equal to or better than glue-applied in terms of carbon footprint but generates waste.

As Alison Keane, president of the Flexible Packaging Association, notes, we are “facing headwinds.” In her message in the July-August issue of FlexPack Voice, she notes some of the complexities and issues that confront packaging today:

“Toxicity in packaging questions (migration); legislation and regulations aimed at per- and polyfluoralkyl substrates (PFAs) and other chemicals; continued pressure from environmental organizations, as well as some governments (namely California and Canada) who deem plastics toxic; truth in labeling proposals.” 

While Alison is focused on resins going into plastic packaging, her comments are similar to our situation. There is misinformation in something as complicated as EPR. I’ve never intended for our industry to take EPR lightly. It is complex and does represent additional costs and logistics problems. However, if we are to improve our carbon footprint, we don’t have any choice, in my opinion. We must divert “non-recyclables” from the landfill. And, if legislation and regulations are necessary, so be it.

The economic aspects of waste disposal, if nothing else, justify EPR legislation. As our economy recovers, so too does higher pricing for waste disposal. Prices for waste disposal leveled out in 2020 because of the pandemic. But in 2021, disposal costs are catching up. The average price (tip fee) to landfill a ton of MSW (municipal solid waste) is about $60 per ton.  That’s almost a 10% increase from a year ago, and 8% alone since December 2020. Average tip fees (disposal costs) were $52 in 2019, $54 in 2020, and now, July of 2020, $60 per ton. Keep in mind the tip fee does not include cost of transportation. Total costs now approach $100 per ton.
The Waste Business Journal notes:

Over the longer-term, landfill pricing, which had been growing at a steady clip of around 3.5%, stalled as companies and municipalities struggled to hang on to business from cash-strapped customers. Today’s prices are reflective of the recovering economy, inflationary pressures, decreasing landfill capacity and pricing discipline exercised by the large waste companies.

Frankly, the person who wants to fill holes in North America with our by-product will ultimately pay more by sending it to the landfill or incineration. Further, we’re losing landfill capacity.  Those holes are disappearing. Take that!

EPR makes environmental and economic sense.

I agree, the producer will have to take responsibility for what he or she has produced, and that will add costs. It will also force many manufacturers to design for circularity.

My postscript in my earlier column confirmed that Maine had passed LD1541, mandating EPR for packaging materials. Bravo! Following closely behind is Oregon with SB582, supported by Governor Kate Brown. Further, there are 19 other states considering EPR legislation. So, it’s coming, sisters and brothers!

Most troublesome in all of this, besides the harsh notes, is the AF&PA (American Forest & Paper Association) position on EPR. I don’t want to get into the same debate that the AF&PA is having with the author of a New York Times article on “recycling rates.” But I find their position on EPR is counter to the concept of
producer responsibility. 

AF&PA states, “Extended Producer Responsibility programs would disrupt the most effective recycling streams in the interest of improving the least effective while imposing large new costs on producers who are already responsible by investing capital to innovate to use a highly renewable and recyclable paper.”  Sorry guys, the current system is broken. It ain’t working. Move over AF&PA and give EPR programs a chance.

ISRI, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, also came out against EPR programs, saying that recyclers know best. 

Here’s the problem, AF&PA and ISRI: Recyclers have tried to develop take-back and recycling schemes for years. Many haven’t worked because, yes, you got it, cost. Now EPR is saying “do it” or pay a fine. The recycler will benefit. ISRI and AF&PA will benefit. And, our environment will benefit because ultimately producers will be forced to design for end of life or pay for appropriate and environmentally acceptable disposal.

As I have written for years, the issue isn’t a lack of solutions. The issue is additional cost. Since we won’t voluntarily make changes, we now legislate EPR schemes that will force us to improve. Bravo, bravo! Thank you, Maine, and welcome Oregon and others.

Another Letter from the Earth.


Calvin Frost is chairman of Channeled Resources Group, headquartered in Chicago, the parent company of Maratech International and GMC Coating. His email address is [email protected].