Packaging EPR Puts Distributors on the Front Lines of a Regulatory Fight
As more states impose extended producer responsibility requirements, distributors face uncertainty over who is responsible, how fees are calculated, and whether the emerging patchwork can survive legal challenges.
F
or distributors selling packaged equipment and supplies into Oregon, determining whether they are an obligated producer under the state’s new
extended producer responsibility (EPR) program is only the fi rst question. Once they fi gure out what packaging, if any, they are accountable for, and after consideration of various exemptions, they must then calculate how much covered material they are introducing into the state. As distributors like Curtis Restaurant Equipment
are discovering, making that calculation is easier said than done. The Springfi eld, Oregon-based distributor has been following the state’s fi rst-in-the-nation implementation of an EPR program, which seeks to collect fees from companies that introduce packaged products into Oregon to pay for recycling and end-of- life programs. So far, CEO Ryan McPhail has identifi ed two areas where Curtis might be responsible for paying EPR fees: disposables such as paper plates and to- go containers, and, more signifi cantly, repackaged equipment.
Repackaging is a service Curtis provides to customers who order several supplies products at once. Instead of
10 FEDA News & Views
sending everything individually, the distributor bundles multiple pieces of an order into one package, ensuring they are all delivered together to avoid disruptions in installation or operations. However, this means that Curtis is introducing new packaging into the distribution channel, which may be covered by Oregon’s EPR law. To report an accurate number to the state, Curtis would have to separately track the weight of every type of material — cardboard, paper void fi ll, plastic fi lm, packaging tape — that goes into repackaging. Further, it would have to separate the materials used for Oregon customers from those shipments sent to foodservice operators in other states. “We’d have to have one person on staff that’s just sitting there counting boxes and weighing out tape every day,” McPhail said. “That’s not realistic. Our team isn’t going to do that.”
Dedicating the labor hours it would take to provide an accurate count is prohibitively expensive, McPhail said. Still, the company wants to remain compliant, so he has a different plan if Curtis is determined to be a producer: report the total of all the repackaging materials the
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
