Page 30 - Plastics News May 2021

internAtionAL news

Maine EPR bills differ on producer APR recognizes recyclability of

control packaging technologies

awmakers in Maine are considering two bills that each DPE tubes, PET aerosol containers and PP
Lestablishes extended producer responsibility programs Hthermoforms were among the packaging innovations
covering packaging of all material types, but with key that received recyclability recognition from the
differences in program management. wo state proposals Association of Plastic Recyclers recently. APR awarded
under consideration in the Northeast get at a central critical guidance recognition letters to tube manufacturer
question of extended producer responsibility programs for Tupack Verpackungen, brand owner Procter & Gamble
packaging: Should the government or private industry have (P&G), pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline
more control? Maine lawmakers (GSK) and packaging producer Silgan. During APR
last month introduced LD 1471, webinars held earlier company officials presented on
billed as “an act to establish the innovations, which can be recycled in widely used
a stewardship program for plastics recycling processes. Matthias Wilhelm from
packaging,” and LD 1541, “an Tupack said the packaging is predominantly sold into
act to support and improve the cosmetics market. To achieve APR recognition,
municipal recycling programs Tupack had PTI-Europe test two different versions:
and save taxpayer money.” a PE mono tube and a PE co-extruded tube. Both of
Both bills establish extended them include a blend of HDPE and LLDPE, but the co-
producer responsibility (EPR) extruded tube also includes EVOH sandwiched between
programs covering packaging layers of HDPE and LLDPE. A maleated polyolefin is
of most material types, used as a tie layer. Tupack has two production plants
requiring producers to fund in Austria, and 99% of the family-owned company’s
end-of-life management for products are exported around the world. Scott Smith,
those materials. research fellow at P&G, explained that the company has
But they contain key differences, particularly in how developed two recyclable all-plastic aerosol containers
the EPR program would be managed and how producer to replace metal ones. The most recent one to undergo
payments would be calculated.Under LD 1471, a recyclability testing is a bag-in-bottle design, where the
stewardship organization would annually determine its product is inside a bag in a bottle. A propellant, which is
budget for managing the program and meeting regulatory located between the bag and the bottle, collapses the
requirements, and it would adopt a fee schedule for how
much each producer would need to pay. Under LD 1541,
on the other hand, the state Department of Environmental
Protection would set the fee schedule, which would be
based on the per-ton costs associated with collecting
and processing the producer’s packaging material. In
general, LD 1541 creates a more government-managed
EPR program, whereas LD 1471 puts producers in the
driver’s seat.LD 1471, sponsored by Democratic Sen. James
Dill, was referred to the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources on April 12, and LD 1541, sponsored
by Democratic Rep. Nicole Grohoski, was referred to the
committee on April 20. Both bills were discussed in a public
hearing on May 10. During the hearing, Dill said his bill bag and ejects the product when the valve is opened.
is similar to EPR approaches taken by lawmakers in New The other more-common design is a dip-stick aerosol,
York and Oregon, and he said it follows EPR principles where the propellant and product are mixed together
set out by the Product Stewardship Institute and Flexible in the bottle and the product is ejected up the dipstick
Packaging Association. when the valve opens.

Plastics News May 2021 30