Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Packaging And Printed Paper topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EPR Commission Backs Further Study of Plastics and Packaging, Urges Appropriation for Needs Assessment
Summary
After extended debate over whether to include printed paper, the commission approved a packaging and printed-paper recommendation and directed DEP/SWAC to pursue a needs assessment contingent on appropriation, with a suggested completion 'within two years of such appropriation.' Several commissioners stressed funding and timeline clarity; two agency seats abstained from the final vote.
The Massachusetts Extended Producer Responsibility Commission voted Dec. 9 to approve a revised recommendation on EPR for plastics and other packaging and to direct further study — contingent on sufficient funding — to determine the program’s scope and impacts.
Commissioners debated whether the statutory phrase "plastics and other packaging" should explicitly include printed paper (magazines, newspapers, cardboard and other paper packaging). Several commissioners argued that 'packaging and printed paper' is the industry-standard phrasing and that printed paper should be considered in a needs assessment because mixed paper and cardboard make up a large share of the recycling stream; others said keeping the statutory wording gives flexibility in defining scope later.
A central point of contention was resources and timeline. Multiple members urged that the commission recommend the Legislature provide an appropriation so DEP could complete a rigorous needs assessment rather than leaving the work unfunded and open-ended. Commissioners settled on language asking that the needs assessment be completed "within two years of such appropriation." A motion to pass the packaging recommendation with the suggested edits was adopted by voice vote after a revised temperature check (language posted in the meeting chat). Several attendees — including representatives from government agencies — recorded abstentions on the vote; Tracy Triplett (Attorney General’s Office) and Sarah Kalish were explicitly noted as abstaining.
Public commenters supported inclusion of printed paper and broader scope. Alex Stockler of The Recycling Partnership urged the commission to recommend EPR for packaging and printed paper, citing research showing well-designed EPR increases access to recycling, improves participation and can reduce municipal costs; Stockler presented Massachusetts recycling-rate figures (cardboard 37%, mixed paper 28%) to support the case.
What happens next: the commission will include the packaging recommendation and background analysis in its final report to the Legislature and has asked that any follow-up needs assessment be funded through a specific appropriation so that DEP or contracted consultants can complete it within the recommended timeframe.
