American Tree Farm System seeks PEFC re-endorsement: public consultation open

More than 30,000 gallons of pulping chemicals from the ND Paper mill in Old Town leaked into the Penobscot River earlier this month, violating state and federal laws, according to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The mill suspended production after discovering that chemicals were spilling into the river through a ruptured underground sewer line and a failed floor drain on Oct. 7. It appears the spill happened periodically over a six-day span, said Brian Kavanah, director of the state agency’s bureau of water quality. The mill reported the leak to the Department of Environmental Protection, which helped with the spill cleanup and repairs to the infrastructure the following day.

American Trucking Associations President and CEO Chris Spear told members of the European Parliament that the international governing body should embrace realistic, achievable timelines to reduce emissions, rejecting California’s unrealistic and unreasonable timelines. “California’s development of the Advanced Clean Truck and Advanced Clean Fleet rules aim to create a zero-emission vehicle market beginning next year. Given where the technology, infrastructure, power grid, cost and operational requirements stand, these regulations will undoubtedly fail to deliver the vehicles and market adoption California seeks,” Spear said in his testimony. “California’s response is predictable: They will just adjust the timelines and percentage targets, unleashing even more uncertainty for the industry. This was the case for the passenger vehicle industry, and we expect history to repeat itself.” ATA has consistently called for unified regulations across all 50 states. Spear noted that next year, because of California’s extreme regulatory push, the industry will be forced to contend with dueling regulatory regimes – one for California and one for the other 49 states.

If you have an interest in packaging policy or sustainable packaging, you have likely heard the term “EPR” or “extended producer responsibility.” But what exactly is EPR, and how will it ultimately affect the types of packaging we use? In this Deep Dive, we will explore the current EPR landscape in the U.S. and what is likely to come over the next several years. A note of caution: this article is intended as a general overview of packaging EPR with some basic advice for companies trying to navigate the new legislative landscape. It should not be taken as legal advice, and we highly recommend that companies who think they are regulated “producers” seek legal counsel to better understand their responsibilities. Introduction to EPR - Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, refers to a policy approach that shifts the responsibility for waste management of a given product from consumers/taxpayers and municipalities onto the producers of that product. Typically, the main goal of EPR is to minimize the environmental externalities of a product’s end of life – that is, minimize the unintended consequence of what happens to a product when we’re done with it. EPR prompts a society to start thinking on a large scale about where products end up when we’re done with them and how we can better manage them. EPR regulations are not new to the U.S. and have been around for over a decade to manage products like e-waste, mattresses, paint, tires, batteries, etc. Let’s take the example of paint. “Producers,” meaning paint manufacturers, are typically responsible for the paint up until the point where you, the consumer, purchase it. But there are some unintended consequences that come when you’re done with that paint can that likely has extra paint in it. While most paint is actually recyclable, many people throw it away or pour it down the drain, which can contaminate the environment with hazardous chemicals. Ultimately, consumers/taxpayers and the environment pay the costs to deal with this result, and paint companies don’t have an incentive to fix it.