Recycling and wastpaper: Legislative trends

In: Course notes. Proceedings, 1993 Recycling symposium;1993 February 28–March 1–4; New Orleans, LA.Atlanta, GA: TAPPI Press; 1993:95-121.

RECYCLING AND WASTEPAPER: LEGISLATIVE TRENDS

Joanne T. Alig, EconomistForest Products LaboratoryForest Service - U.S. Department of AgricultureMadison, WI - U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

Examining the trends in state recycling laws is essential for an industry whose product isone of the leading components of the solid waste stream. State recycling laws nowencompass every aspect of paper recycling, from landfill bans and disposal fees, to thecollection and reprocessing of recovered paper, to the purchase of recycled products byconsumers. Legislative information was collected from examination of state laws andcomprehensive state management reports, and contacts with state recycling coordinators,waste management boards, legislative offices, and other solid-waste experts. In the past5 years, the number of states passing laws related to recycling and wastepaper hasincreased for every category of laws studied. Future projections indicate that legislativeactivity will continue to affect both supply and demand and play an important role inmarkets for recovered materials.

INTRODUCTION

The past 5 years have brought significant changes in solid waste management throughoutthe United States. Concern over the environment has become an important social andeconomic issue. As a result, the traditional competitive marketplace has been altered bylegislative initiatives aimed at preserving our natural resources through source reductionand recycling.

Some legislative issues, such as mandated procurement of recycled products by stateagencies, existed as far back as the mid- 1970s. However, these laws merely encouragedthe use of recycled products without providing for any significant changes in purchasingpractices (1). State laws enacted since 1987 and 1988 for all solid-waste managementissues are intended to alter the behavior of all citizens by encouraging collectionprograms, incentives for processing recovered materials, and markets for recycledproducts.

Proposals that promote recycling, such as residential and commercial collection laws,municipal planning for recycling, and landfill laws, are intended to help reduce the

1993 Recycling Symposium / 95

amount of waste that ends up in landfills each year and to generate a supply ofwastepaper and other recyclable products. To offset any oversupply that results fromrecycling and collection programs, legislators also consider market developmentinitiatives such as recycled fiber content mandates, procurement preferences for stateagency purchases, and financial incentives to businesses for investing in recyclingtechnology.

As the primary component of the solid waste stream, paper and paper products are aleading target for legislation. In 1988, paper made up 40% of the municipal solid wastestream (2). The paper industry has used secondary fiber for years. In the most recentattempts to reduce, reuse, and recycle paper products, wastepaper has come to play aneven more significant role in the paper industry as industry is called on to utilize recycledfiber in production processes.

Because wastepaper, recycling, and legislation can affect pulp and paper markets, theUSDA Forest Service is studying these issues as part of a research effort designed toproduce economic projections of the pulp and paper sector in North America.Information on legislative developments will be used to make assumptions about futureminimum and maximum recovery rates, minimum recycled fiber content, tipping fees,and other supply and demand indicators corresponding to the North American Pulp andPaper (NAPAP) economic model developed by the Forest Products Laboratory.

The data set includes recycling laws that affect pulp and paper markets for all 50 statesand begins with statutes that existed or were passed in 1988; the data set extendedthrough July 1992. Data were obtained from comprehensive solid-waste managementreports, examination of individual state laws, and contact with state recyclingcoordinators, waste management boards, legislative offices, and other solid-wasteexperts. Comprehensive solid-waste management reports were double-checked foraccuracy of information. Copies of state laws bearing the signature of the Governor ofthe state were obtained when possible.

Although any examination of social issues is partly subjective, and legislation can behighly variable within a short time period, an attempt is made to provide futureprojections of legislative issues. Projections are made to the year 2010, primarily basedon trends in the states, all known pending legislation, federal legislation governing stateactions, knowledge of interest groups opposing and supporting legislative initiatives, andchanges occurring in the marketplace that might influence legislative decisions. Resultsare not based on documented political theory concerning state government decision-making.

96 / TAPPI Notes

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this report are to (a) analyze the historical trends in wastepaperrecycling laws, (b) examine current issues in recycling legislation that affect wastepapermarkets, and (c) make assumptions about the extent of future laws.

LANDFILLS

The main force behind much current solid-waste legislation is the growing concern aboutthe decreased capacity of existing landfills. Consequently, the supply of recoverablematerials, including paper, can be driven up by the emphasis on recycling and recoveryas alternatives to landfill disposal. At the state level, laws involve restrictions oncertification, permission, and operations. Landfill closures, therefore, are based not onlyon capacity but also on the need to retrofit old landfills to meet current requirements.Also, a few state laws prohibit some recyclable products from being landfilled. Inaddition, state statutes have placed surcharges on landfill disposal fees, largely to raiserevenue for recycling programs.

Landfill Bans

More than 32 states have banned waste tires and lead acid batteries from their landfills(3). Only five states currently have bans that affect recovered paper. Some state landfillbans are described in Table 1.

Connecticut was the first state (in 1987) to ban corrugated cardboard, newspapers, andwhite office paper from landfills. (Note: Corrugated cardboard and other nonindustryterms used throughout this report are taken directly from state laws.) However, due toproblems with enforcement, this law was repealed in 1990 (Public Act 90-220).Connecticut enacted a source separation requirement, mandating that residential andcommercial generators must source-separate those materials instead (1990 Public Act-225). Rhode Island banned all recyclable from landfills in 1990. A 1990Massachusetts regulation bans all grades of recyclable paper, in addition to otherrecyclables. Wisconsin’s 1990 Act 335 bans corrugated paper or other container board,magazines, newspapers, and office paper from being landfilled by 1995 except forcommunities that develop “effective” recycling programs--recycling programs thatinclude source separation and collection of materials that would otherwise be landfilled.Minnesota’s SF2199 banned telephone books from landfills effective July 1, 1992.South Dakota’s HB 1001 was signed by the Governor on March 14, 1992. This lawbans office wastepaper and computer paper from being landfilled after June 30, 1996.Beginning January 1997, old newspapers, old magazines, corrugated paper, and othercardboard paper cannot be landfilled.


Future of Landfills

Researchers from the National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA) recentlyreported that the amount of waste produced by U.S. citizens continues to rise whilelandfill capacity continues to decline (4). According to this report, 10 states haveindicated that they have less than 5 years’ landfill capacity left; 28 states have less than10 years.

Landfills have recently touted new safeguards against ground water leakage, improvedliner systems, and better coverage to prevent soil erosion (5). However, the “not in mybackyard” (NIMBY) syndrome is not likely to wane. States are passing laws intended toextend landfill life or use alternative waste management solutions. Should the landfillsituation continue to be perceived as a crisis, we can expect more states to ban disposal ofsome items in landfills. However, many states have been implementing recyclingprograms and will likely determine the effects of such programs before initiating bans onproducts being disposed of in landfills. Some states have nearly run out of landfill space.When this occurs, states must ship their wastes to other states. Several states, however,have attempted to ban out-of-state wastes from their landfills. The Supreme Court hasruled some bans unconstitutional. As a result, states are limiting the total amount ofwaste that can be disposed of at any one landfill and may consider bans to keep thisamount to a minimum.

By 1995,6 more states (for a total of 11) are likely to have banned recyclable fromlandfills. By the year 2000, between 3 and 7 more states could have laws banning paperproducts from being landfilled, totalling 14 to 18. These estimates are based oninformation from state contacts, the decreasing number of landfills, and diminishinglandfill capacity. After 2000, should capacity decrease as predicted by the NSWMA,disposing of recyclables in landfills will be difficult, even in the absence of state law. By2005, it is likely that 25 to 30 states will have enacted landfill ban statutes. By 2010, thatnumber will stabilize, as states either have landfill bans in place or have found alternativemeans of disposal and waste management (Fig. 1).

Currently, most legislation pertaining to paper products has focused on old newspaper(ONP), old magazines (OMG), and old corrugated containers (OCC). Telephone booksmay receive increasing attention in the future, although publishers are beginning tocollect them at a fairly high rate.

98 / TAPPI Notes

Table I. Current state landfill bans

Disposal Fees

Landfill disposal fees are currently more popular than landfill bans because theyencourage recycling by increasing the cost of landfilling and they also raise revenue forstate recycling programs. Waste disposal fees are paid by the landfill owner or operatorto the host municipality. The fee is measured by the amount of waste disposed of in thatfacility on a per-ton basis. Although the fee is placed on the owner of the landfill, it canbe passed down to the hauler in the form of a tip fee. A tip fee is a per-ton charge paid tothe owner or operator of the landfill by the hauler. Generally the tip fee is determined bymarket conditions. However, some states place a surcharge directly on the tip fee. Inaddition to waste disposal fees and tip fees, Florida and Minnesota use advance disposalfees (ADFs). The ADFs are taxes paid on a product or material at the point of purchaseat either the manufacture or retail level.

Trends and Future of Disposal Fees

In 1988,4 states had enacted some sort of disposal fee. In 1989, 14 more states hadenacted disposal fee laws. By 1990, a total of 19 states had statutes. By the end of 1991,4 more states passed laws, bringing the total to 23. South Dakota passed HB 1001 in1992, bringing the total to 25.

At least 4 states have indicated that disposal fee laws are possible by 1995, and 3 otherscurrently are studying the issue with reports due by 1994. Therefore, 4 to 7 more statesare likely to have some disposal fee law by the end of 1995, for a total of 27 to 30 states.Based on the past trend and on the number of states that have shown an interest indisposal fees, 3 to 6 more states may enact laws from 1995 to 2000. This scenario islikely given that recycling costs are high in some areas and states are looking for ways tofund their collection programs. After 2000, states will likely have found efficient waysto operate and fund recycling programs, so the costs should level off. At the same time,diminished landfill capacity should be of even greater concern than it is now, as statescome closer to running out of landfill space. Should capacity diminish as predicted bythe states, disposal fee laws will likely serve as incentivescost of landfilling above the cost of recycling. Therefore,

to avoid landfills by raising theit is possible that 5 to 9 more


states will pass statutes by 2005. After that, legislation will level off, with 1 to 5 morestates passing laws by 2010, bringing the total to between 36 and 50 states (Fig. 2).

MANDATORY COLLECTION LAWS

Mandatory collection laws have arisen out of the concern that too much solid waste isbeing landfilled and not enough is being reused. As they pertain to recovered paper,these laws affect recovery and collection and the increase in supply of recovered paper.Mandatory recycling laws include state recovery goals, community management plans,and mandatory collection laws. Several states passed recovery mandates in the early1980s. However, at that time, local governments did not have the financial means toimplement effective collection programs. In response, recent state statutes give monetaryassistance to municipalities.

State Recovery Goals

In February 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) included goals for sourcereduction and recycling of materials in their recommendations for state wastemanagement strategies (6). Recovery goals, whether termed recycling goals, solid wastemanagement goals, source reduction goals, or diversion goals, indicate that the stateplaces collection and recycling above landfilling in the choice of waste disposal options.

In 1988, only 9 states had established statewide goals. By 1989, 15 more states had setrecovery goals, and by 1991 only 11 states had not established goals. States withoutsource reduction or recycling goals are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho,Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Voluntary recyclinggoals have been included in the totals of states because such goals are perceived as noless effective in encouraging recycling than are mandated goals (7). Recovery goalsrange from 20% by 1994 in Maryland to 70% of the state’s municipal solid waste inRhode Island; the goals can have an indirect effect on other recycling initiatives.

Future of Recovery Goals

Of the states that have not established recovery goals, at least 5 have indicated that a goalhas been discussed. Therefore, by 1995, it is likely that 4 to 5 more states will establishgoals. By the year 2000, 1 to 2 more states may set a target recovery percentage.Because these goals act as incentives for recycling, and 44 to 46 states will haverecycling programs in place by the year 2000, it is unlikely that more states will establishgoals after that, as recycling is no longer a new phenomenon and goals are no longerdeemed necessary to continue recycling programs.

Community Management Plans

State solid-waste management goals cannot be achieved without participation at the locallevel. Thirty-three states require counties, cities, or districts to establish local plans for

100 / TAPPI Notes

managing solid waste and include recovery goals, source reduction, and/or recyclingprograms in those plans. These plans are typically called “recycling plans,” althoughthey are aimed primarily at recovery, and not at reprocessing and reuse of materials.

Trends and future of community plans.

By 1988, 12 states in total required community management plans. Nine more statesenacted such laws in 1989, and by the end of 1991, 32 states had laws that required localplans for recycling. In 1992, Maryland amended its law and South Dakota proposedlegislation. Given the trend in local management of solid waste, it is estimated that by1995,5 to 10 more states will adopt laws requiring municipalities to develop solid-wastemanagement plans, bringing the total between 37 and 42. By the year 2000, 45 to 50states are likely to enact laws requiring planning at the local level (Fig. 3).

Community collection laws.

In an effort to increase recovery of recyclable materials collected, 25 states mandate thatcommunities must make provisions for collection or provide their citizens with the“opportunity to recycle.” This means that states must require residential waste recovery,mandate that local governments include collection in their solid-waste managementplans, or require solid-waste management districts, counties, or cities to offer curbsidecollection services or collection at a central location.

Community collection law trends.

Several reports point to Oregon’s 1983 “opportunity-to-recycle” act as the model forcommunity collection program mandates. Oregon is considered the first to require citieswith populations of more than 4,000 to establish curbside collection programs By 1988.8 states had enacted opportunity to recycle laws. Currently, 25 states mandate collection.

Collection of Telephone Directories

The collection and recycling of telephone directories is on the rise. Only three states,Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Minnesota, currently mandate collection, but severaldirectory publishers voluntarily implement collection programs. In addition to collectionmandates, the Yellow Pages Publisher’s Association has worked with the NortheastRecycling Council (NERC) to establish voluntary telephone direction recycling andcollection programs in place of state mandates. Collection rates for telephone directoriesare expected to continue to rise. According to a spokesperson for the Yellow PagesPublisher’s Association, a market for recovered telephone directories is forming, andthere will be an increase in demand for recycled phone books in the future.

Source Separation

Collection laws can include specific, mandatory source separation requirements directingthe generator (residential or commercial) to separate designated materials. New Jersey’s


1987 law was the model for requiring that households and businesses separate waste bysource (1) and for levying fines for those that fail to comply with the law. According tothe NSWMA, New Jersey residences and businesses and Pennsylvania residences mustseparate three materials. Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Maine mustseparate paper in addition to other recyclables (8). Delaware requires the developmentof a state comprehensive solid-waste management plan to include source separation ofnewspapers, corrugated cardboard, computer paper, and white paper (SB 424, 1990).Florida has a separation law for newsprint. West Virginia (SB 18, 1991) requires allsolid waste (including all paper) to be separated into recyclable materials beforecollection. Wisconsin’s law prohibits corrugated paper, magazines, newspapers, andoffice paper from being landfilled if effective solid-waste management plans are notdeveloped.

Likely Future of Collection Laws

Several issues affect the future for collection laws. First, the perceived high cost ofcollecting recyclable materials makes communities question investment--whether it isprofitable to continue to provide recovery services to their citizens. However, to helpoffset costs, most states offer grants and loans to their counties or cities for implementingrecovery programs, an indication that the state supports local efforts. Furthermore,nearly 4,000 communities have established recovery programs, suggesting that theimpetus behind these programs lies in the perceived high social costs of disposing ofwaste in landfills.

Research conducted at the Forest Products Laboratory indicates that while prices arecurrently low, for wastepaper in particular, changing markets and increased demand inthe future should lead to rising prices (9). Communities may then find it economicallyfeasible to recycle. In addition to this, projected increases in tipping fees will make thecosts of landfill disposal higher than they are today. By avoiding these disposal costs,communities will find recycling feasible.

This leads to the second issue: finding markets for recyclable materials. The currentoversupply in some markets, largely due to the rise in municipal collection programs, hascaused a decline in prices of secondary materials. Once markets for recyclable aredeveloped and demand rises, higher price levels can be expected. Market demand isincreasing. One sign of the upturn in demand for wastepaper is the construction of newmills and expansion of existing mills. In 1991, the American Paper Institute (API)reported that 44 mill expansions were planned in the North, 28 in the South, and 15 inthe West (10). Locations of these mills correspond with states that mandate collectionprograms--52 percent are in the North. The correspondence between mill expansionplans and collection programs indicates that markets will exist for utilizing the supply ofrecovered paper.

A third issue affecting the future of collection programs is the current and future landfillsituation. One of the primary reasons for the rise in collection program mandates hasbeen the concern over the declining capacity of landfills, This is why the regions with

102 / TAPPI Notes

the least number of landfills currently have the greatest number of curbside collectionprograms in place (11). As stated earlier, NSWMA researchers have reported that 28states indicated in 1991 that they have less than 10 years of landfill capacity (4). Ofthese states, 12 currently mandate collection and recycling at the local level. As theremaining 16 states search for ways to extend landfill capacity, legislators will introduceand consider collection laws as an alternative to landfill disposal.

Finally, factored into estimating the future of collection laws is the general trend for suchlaws in the past 4 years, During this time, the number of curbside collection programshas increased approximately 250%, as reported in the April 1992 issue of Biocycle (11).

The number of states with mandated programs has increased significantly since 1988. In1988,8 states required community collection; in 1989, 10 states; in 1990, 16 states; in1991, 24 states; and currently, 25 states. From 1988 to present, there has been anincrease of over 200 percent in mandated recovery.

Given the past 5-year trend, the need to find alternatives to landfill disposal, and thelikelihood of new markets for recovered paper, it is estimated that between 1992 and1995,5 to 10 more states may implement programs. From 1995 to 2000, it is likely that5 to 10 more states will implement programs. By 2000, a total of 35 to 45 states arelikely to have mandatory municipal collection programs. After 2000, the number ofmandatory programs will level off, as states develop infrastructures for recovery and asvoluntary programs continue. Therefore, the years 2005 and 2010 will see no realincrease in the number of mandatory programs (Fig. 4).

Although there will likely be no increase in mandatory programs and maximumcollection rates will likely be reached, collection programs will not disappear. Prices forwaste materials will increase, bringing the incentive for voluntary programs to continue.New technologies and new markets will arise, and consumer preferences will turn towardrecycled products. New landfills are being built, but the NIMBY syndrome makes itdifficult to do so. In the end, as recycling becomes more economical and the costs oflandfilling increase, recovery will continue to be an important component of solid-wastemanagement.

STATE AGENCY PRACTICES

Recycling laws target government agencies as a source of recycled fiber, as a consumerof recycled materials, and as an example for other businesses to follow, Legislationmandating source separation and collection at state agencies is intended to increase thesupply of recovered paper. Procurement policies and price preferences, on the otherhand, are designed to stimulate the use of recovered paper.


Government Agency Collection

At least 39 states require state agencies to source-separate and collect, and at least 2states have resolutions encouraging collection in state departments (12; 13). Of the 9states that do not currently mandate collection in state agencies, none has indicated that itmay be considering such a law in the next 3 years. However, community curbsidecollection programs showed an increase of more than 40% from 1990 to 1991 (11),commercial collection is also increasing, and federal agency recovery programs are inplace. Therefore, by 2000, close to 50 states are likely to require collection in stateoffices (Fig. 5).

Procurement Preferences

Procurement preference laws require state agencies to favor recycled products when theyare of comparable quality to products made with virgin materials. These laws aredesigned to stimulate the demand for paper and paper products. One or more of thefollowing can be included in a state’s procurement law:

Set-aside; A certain percentage of products purchased will be reserved for procuringrecycled products. Set-asides range from 10% in Florida and South Dakota to 100% inVermont by 1993.

Purchasing goal; This goal is similar to a set-aside, except target percentage is a goal,not a mandate. Purchase goals range from 25% in Louisiana and South Carolina, to60% in Arkansas, Missouri, and Washington.

Fiber content standard; Recycled material purchased must contain certain minimumpercentages of recycled fiber. Missouri’s law sets minimum content requirements for thepurchase of newsprint (40%), paperboard (80%), high-grade printing and writing paper(50%), and tissue products (5% to 40%).

In 1988, at least 17 states had a procurement preference law. Based on information fromthe API (14), the Center for Earth Resource Management Applications (15),Conservatree Paper Company (16), Richard Keller (17), Jaako Poyry with FranklinAssociates (18), and individual state recycling contacts, nearly all 50 states had somepolicy favoring recycled products by July 1991. In total, 49 states have statutes thatfavor purchasing recycled products. Only Alabama has no procurement preference law.

Future Trends for Procurement Preferences

One significant point about procurement preference laws is that in 1990 and 1991, atleast 10 states revised their laws. Look for states to continue to amend regulations,revising goals and set-asides upward as market demand initiatives in legislation becomemore important. In addition, revisions will likely include provisions for the use of post-consumer waste and the use of recovered paper in printing and writing paper (19).

104 / TAPPI Notes

Price Preferences

One problem with applying procurement preferences to purchase decisions is thatrecycled products have typically cost more than products made from virgin materials.Because government agencies are required to purchase products at least cost, productsmade from virgin materials have been purchased instead of those made from recycledmaterials. Price preferences alleviate this problem by authorizing purchase agents to paya higher percentage (usually 5% or 10%) for recycled products than for those made fromvirgin materials.

Trends and Future of Price Preferences

At least 8 states allowed for price differentials in 1988. Presently, 33 states have pricepreferences, a rise of 25 in the past 4 years. In addition to those 33 states, both Delawareand South Dakota allow for purchases of recycled products “within a budgetedvariance” or if the price is competitive. It is likely that at least 4 more states will adoptprice preferences for state agency purchases by 1995; 3 more states are likely to do soafter 1995, for a total of 40 states by 2000 (Fig. 6).

Because current prices for recycled products are typically higher than prices for productsmade from virgin materials, state agencies are allowed to pay more for recycled productsto meet procurement preference requirements. New technologies that will eventuallylower the cost of producing recycled products and increased attention on encouragingmarkets should result in lower prices for recycled materials in the future. Should theprice of recycled products become equal to, or drop below, the price of virgin products,there will no longer be a need for price differentials.

MANDATORY RECYCLED FIBER CONTENT

As a result of the capital costs and time involved for process changes to utilize secondarymaterials, the demand for recoverable materials has not increased as rapidly as collection.Consequently, prices in some markets are low, and the merits of recovery are beingweighed against the costs. Demand side issues and mandatory recycled fiber contentstandards have surfaced as the solution.

Mandated recycled content requirements (minimum content laws) could have a directimpact on the demand for wastepaper as a raw material, Mandatory recycled contentlaws require private manufacturers to use certain percentages of recycled fiber in theirproduction processes. These minimum content laws should be distinguished fromgovernment procurement laws, which set content requirements for the purchase of paperby government agencies.


Laws for Newsprint and Directories

State laws mandating recycled content have focused primarily on newsprint. To date, 11states have set target percentages for recycled fiber content that newspaper publishersmust meet. In addition, West Virginia’s law calls for 80% of the newsprint used bypublishers to contain the highest post-consumer content practicable, but it does notspecify percentage requirements. Furthermore, newspaper publishers in 13 states haveaccepted voluntary agreements to use recycled fiber.

Three states (Connecticut, Maryland, and Oregon) have enacted percentagerequirements for recycled fiber content for telephone directory paper. Minnesota has notmandated percentage requirements, but according to its law, directories must be printedon recyclable paper. Separate from these mandates, the Yellow Pages Publisher’sAssociation has adopted nationwide voluntary recycled content standards for directorypaper of 10% by 1993, 25% by 1995, and 40% by 1998 (20).

Likely Future of Mandatory Recycled Fiber Content

Newsprint.

Although no recycled fiber content laws for newsprint were passed in 1992, content lawswill continue to receive much attention in the future. Many legislators view minimumcontent laws as a way to provide a guaranteed market for utilizing recycled fiber.Currently, mandatory requirements exist in 12 states; 13 states have reached voluntaryagreements with newspaper publishers. This near-even split will likely continue in thefuture. Therefore, the estimate for future minimum content laws for newsprint issomewhat conservative.

It is likely that 2 to 5 more states could pass minimum content laws for newsprint by1995. By 2000, 3 to 6 more states may pass laws, for a total of 16 to 23 states. It isunlikely that more than 25 states will have passed laws by 2005, By 2010, therefore, it islikely that 22 to 25 states will have minimum content laws for newsprint.

Table II shows target dates for newsprint in the United States. Most states have settargets of 40% to 50% content by the year 2000, and this trend will likely continue. Sixstates that have mandatory guidelines require newspaper publishers to reach 40%recycled fiber content by 1998; 4 of these states require 50% by the year 2000.Publishers in 6 states in total are scheduled to reach a 40% target by the year 2000(Fig. 7).

106 / TAPPI Notes

Table II. Percentage requirements for newsprint by region

av = voluntary

Directories.

It is unlikely that mandatory recycled fiber content legislation for telephone directorieswill increase substantially. Voluntary content standards are expected to proliferate. Theindustry is currently looking into technology, considering how to recycle moredirectories and to use more recycled fiber (20).

LABEL LAWS, STANDARDS, AND DEFINITIONS

Regulations on recycling labeling arose in an attempt to halt false or misleadingenvironmental claims by some manufacturers. Eleven states have attempted to regulateenvironmental labeling, but individual state laws fail to provide consistent andcompatible definitions. Disparity across state lines means that manufacturers need tomarket their products with different labels for each state and provides disincentives toproduce products labeled with recycled content. Consistent definitions can enhanceconsumer confidence and promote recycling.

Environmental groups, government agencies, and industry disagree over definitions andstandards for paper and paper products. The debate often centers around what constitutespost-consumer and pre-consumer wastepaper, how recycled content can be measured,and what can be legitimately termed recycled paper.

Recovered paper can be classified as either pre-consumer or post-consumer. Pre-consumer recovered paper generally comes from waste generated from machine trim andother manufacturing operations, including printing scrap (21). Post-consumer waste isgenerated after the product has reached the end user. Environmental and governmentalorganizations have supported using more post-consumer waste in recycled paper. Theirreasoning is that only the post-consumer grades will be diverted from the landfill. Thepaper industry takes the position that pre-consumer grades would be landfilled if theywere not already used in paper manufacturing. Their position is that under mostdefinitions, the industry recycles almost all pre-consumer waste and the only area forgrowth is post-consumer. Therefore, great efforts need not be expended to come up withdefinitions of pre- and post-consumer. All agree that consistent standards and definitionsshould be used. Attempts to establish or make recommendations on environmentallabeling and definitions have been made nationally, regionally, and at the state level.


National Efforts

RAC Guidelines.

On February 6, 1992, the Recycling Advisory Council (RAC) passed guidelines toprovide uniform definitions that were intended for use by government agencies inprocurement practices. In the guidelines, total recycled fiber is defined as the fiberderived from recovered paper, excluding any paper generated in the mill prior to thecompletion of the paper manufacturing process. Post-consumer or comparable fiberincludes only material that has been printed and/or contains inks or colored dyes; it alsoincludes over-issue magazines and newspapers and the printed or dyed portion of wastesfrom converting, publishing, or printing operations.

The RAC encourages the EPA to adopt the recommended definitions nationally, and theprivate sector is encouraged to adopt them voluntarily. In addition, the RAC establishedlabeling guidelines to be applied to all recycled paper products, whether or not forgovernment procurement (22).

ASTM Definitions

The American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) is also developing terminology forprinting and writing paper, newsprint, tissue, and packaging. From 156 voting membersconsisting of representatives from EPA, the Council of State Legislatures, and industrygroups, ASTM achieved at least 90% consensus on 11 terms considered in May 1992. Atleast 75% consensus was reached on 7 other terms, but those terms will not be adopteduntil at least 90% consensus is achieved (23).

The main definition still being debated is that of post-consumer. Dan Mulligan,Chairman of the ASTM Recycled Paper Subcommittee, explains that this definitionshould not be underestimated because under a total recycled fiber content standard, theamount of post-consumer waste that would end up in the final product using thedefinition for total recycled fiber is less than the amount of waste if a post-consumerstandard were used.

PDWG Standards

The Paper Definitions Working Group (PDWG) consists of environmental organizations,state purchasing agents, and industry representatives. According to the PDWG proposal,“recycled material” includes post-converting material and post-consumer material. Post-converting material includes pre-consumer materials such as unsold magazines that haveleft the manufacturing facility, but that have never been handled by consumers. Inaddition, the PDWG supports greater use of post-consumer fiber. Furthermore, recycledcontent is defined on the basis of total weight rather than fiber weight (24). Theemphasis on weight is significant as some grades of paper, such as printing and writing,

108 / TAPPI Notes

contain fillers that affect the percentage of fiber necessary to produce the sheet as well asthe percentage of fiber recoverable from that sheet.

Paper Recycling Coalition Proposal

The Paper Recycling Coalition is a group of 10 paper companies that do not use virginfiber in paper and paperboard production (25). Under their definitions, recovered paperis defined as the paper materials that have been removed or diverted from solid waste,regardless of source, for sale, use, reuse, or recycling. Recycled fiber is defined as thatderived from recovered paper and processed into a product usable in the manufacture of aproduct. Recycled content is paper containing less than 100% recycled fiber; recycledpaper contains 100% recycled fiber and is labelled as such.

EPA and FTC

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines were issued in September 1992. Theseguidelines are voluntary recommendations with no regulatory authority, and they do notpreempt state laws. Under these guidelines, the label recyclable can apply to productsand packages that can be recovered from the waste stream and be used for producing newproducts. Labels on products made of recyclable and nonrecyclable materials mustclarify which materials are recyclable (26).

“Recycled content” means that the product or package is made from materials that havebeen recovered from the solid-waste stream. Materials recovered during themanufacturing process are called pre-consumer, and those recovered after consumer useare called post-consumer. Distinctions may be made between pre- and post- consumermaterials, and any such claim must be substantiated. According to FTC guidelines, aclaim of recycled content for recycled materials from machine mm is deceptive becausethese materials are normally reused by industry within the manufacturing process. onthe other hand, a claim of recycled content for newspaper overruns is not deceptive.Claims that paper products contain 100% recycled fiber are not deceptive if 100% byweight of the fiber in the finished product is recycled.

The call for national uniform definitions is evident. The answer as to which standardswill be accepted remains to be determined. In the meantime, regional organizations andstate governments, looking for some solution, are beginning to develop their ownstandards.

Regional Efforts

In 1990, the Attorneys General of 11 states issued the Green Report, calling on thefederal government to establish national standards and definitions. In May 1991, theGreen Report II was issued to reaffirm the need for federal standards. This report assertsthat recycled content claims should be specific, and separate percentages should bedisclosed for post-consumer and pre-consumer materials. In addition, only post-


consumer materials should be called recycled. Other material should be referred to asreprocessed industrial material.

The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) is also taking a regional approach todeveloping more consistent standards and definitions (27). Ten states (Maine, NewHampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York,Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware) belong to NERC and have agreed to use thestandards as they develop individual labelling regulations.

State Efforts

States have been enacting definitions and labelling standards at an increasing rate. In1988, only 1 state, Illinois, had some type of law concerning the issue. In 1989,Connecticut joined Illinois, and by the end of 1990,4 more states, for a total of 6, hadenacted labeling laws. Three (California, New York, and Rhode Island) of the 4 statesthat passed laws in 1990 set specific definitions for recyclable and recycled. Five morestates passed laws in 1991, bringing the total to 11. Although no states are known tohave passed label laws in 1992, several states have laws pending. Given the increasedfocus on developing markets and given the lack of any federal standards, it is likely thatstate labeling laws will increase in the near future. However, should national standardsbe developed, states will likely forego enacting state laws and may need to revise someof their existing statutes.

PACKAGING LAWS

Pressure to reduce the amount of packaging used in consumer goods has risen in the pastfew years and is likely to continue. Although several bills have been introducedthroughout the states, few have actually been passed. In the past, legislators focused onpackaging bans and taxes. Bans did not include paper packaging because paper wasconsidered biodegradable (28). However, more recent laws are aimed at reducing theamount of paper packaging discarded in landfills. Legislators in the United States maymodel packaging laws after Germany’s Green Dot law. Other initiatives at the federallevel could significantly affect the manufacture and use of packaging. States have shownsome interest in packaging reduction laws.

Germany’s Green Dot Law

Germany intends to achieve an overall source reduction in packaging by 20% to 25%.To do this, the Green Dot law obligates manufacturers to take back packaging after use,unless it displays the green dot symbol. The fee paid by the manufacturer for the symbol depends on the size of the package, providing incentive to reduce the size of packages.The symbol indicates to the consumer that the package will be recycled or reused and canbe disposed of in special collection bins.

110 / TAPPI Notes

Federal Legislation

In 1992, Senator Baucus (D-Montana) proposed a measure similar to the Green Dot law.The proposal would direct manufacturers of newsprint, printing and writing paper, andpaperboard packaging to recycle 40% in 1995, 45% in 1998, and 50% in 2000. Therequirement to recycle could include using recyclable materials in other products, reusingpackaging, or reducing the amount of packaging material used by weight.

State Legislation

Several states have taken action to promote packaging reduction. The Coalition forNortheast Governors (CONEG) introduced its model packaging legislation, whichconsists of two parts. The first part pertains to toxic materials in packaging. At least 14states have modeled legislation after this portion of the CONEG legislation. The secondpart pertains to source reduction, increased recyclability, and post-consumer content inpackaging. Only Iowa has introduced a reduction bill with similar provisions.Massachusetts and Oregon voters rejected restrictive packaging initiatives. New Yorkwill likely introduce a reduction bill in the 1993 legislative session.

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

Legislators recognize that local collection programs alone cannot solve the solid-wasteproblem. Markets must be developed to utilize recovered materials. To be effective,recycling must become a priority for consumers in their buying habits and formanufacturers in their production processes. To encourage industry to substituterecovered materials for virgin materials in production, states are offering grants and loansor tax credits to businesses.

Grants and loans are often made to local governments for establishing collection andrecycling programs. To encourage the use of recovered materials, 20 states offer grantsand low-interest loans to businesses. Tax incentives include a tax deduction, exemption,credit, or reduced tax on sales, property, or income taxes. The pulp and paper industrycan take advantage of tax incentives for purchasing recycling equipment, producingrecycled products, or using certain percentages of recycled fiber in the productionprocess (12). So far, 17 states offer some sort of tax incentive that can be applied to thepaper industry for recycling. As states continue to focus on the demand side, tax breaks,grants, and loans will remain important market development tools.

CONCLUSION

The number of states passing laws related to recycling and wastepaper has increased forevery category of laws studied. In 1992, recycling and other environmental issues did notreceive as much legislative attention as in past years, which many attribute to theeconomy and to the election year. However, recycling is not a fad, Our nation’s solid-waste concerns industry, environmentalists, citizens, and government alike. Solid-waste


solutions are economic as well as social. Recycling legislation therefore is expected tocontinue to affect supply and demand and to play an important role in markets forrecovered materials.

LITERATURE CITED

112 / TAPP1 Notes


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author acknowledges Peter Ince of the USDA Forest Service, Forest ProductsLaboratory, contacts in several state recycling and legislative agencies, the many peoplewho provided background information and resources, and numerous others who sharedtheir knowledge and expertise. In addition, the author would like to acknowledge thosewho reviewed this report: Mary Cesar of Jaako Poyry, Kathy Gill of Northwest Pulp &Paper Association, Ronald Slinn and Powell Berger of the American Paper Institute,David Darr, USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Economic Research, and TedWegner of the USDA Forest Service.

An edited version of this report was published in CEMA’S Recycled Paper News,October 1992.

114 / TAPPI Notes

Documents

Recycling and wastpaper: Legislative trends