More than 100 people showed up in-person and virtually to an informal stakeholder meeting on Maine’s draft material types list for the state’s extended producer responsibility program for packaging.
The attendees brought questions and concerns about how the list classified various materials, particularly molded fiber. They also emphasized the need for list harmonization between states that have passed EPR for packaging.
Looking forward, the state plans to initiate formal rulemaking on the list and get it approved by summer, then issue a request for proposals to select the stewardship organization in September, with contracting to come in April 2026.
To start off the meeting, environmental specialists from the Department of Environmental Protection EPR team, Jessica Nadeau and Kayla Michaud, emphasized that the list was very much still a draft and the team was actively seeking technical feedback from stakeholders to adjust it.
Michaud noted that the intent was to not “get too granular on the first iteration” of the list. The list set a primary designation of readily recyclable or not, then a secondary designation of reusable or compostable.
To be designated as readily recyclable, material was evaluated on three criteria: marketability, throughput and ratio. If a material did not meet the first criterion, it was not evaluated on the second or third.
That means each “readily recyclable” material has at least two markets in North America targeting it, it is common enough in MRFs to warrant sortation, and at least 60% of the total weight of the packaging material type is targeted for recycling, Michaud said.
Compostable means the packaging was designed for direct food contact and certified by a third party as meeting ASTM standards.
Reusable is defined as having an alternative collection program set up accepting the material in every county in which it is sold. Michaud noted that there are currently no materials that meet that definition, because there are no programs set up yet. The state is currently creating the application process for those systems.
Producers must annually report the tons of covered material that they send into the state, and participating municipalities must collect and recycle all packaging material types designated readily recyclable.
The list is separated by base material, covering glass, metal, paper, cork, wood and plastic by resin type. It is then further divided into 50 packaging material types.
The initial list classifies just under a dozen material types as readily recyclable: clear, amber, green and blue glass containers, aluminum, tin or steel cans, containers, closures, and lids, corrugated cardboard, coated corrugated cardboard, coated paper, multi-material paper and high-density polyethylene colored and natural.
PET thermoforms and polypropylene natural and colored forms met the marketability criterion but not the throughput criterion. No material types are classified as compostable or reusable.
Stakeholder reaction
Susan Bush, EPR project manager at Circular Action Alliance, pointed out that the categories Maine is proposing don’t line up with other states that have approved packaging EPR, and the result will be over 200 distinct reporting categories across Maine, California, Oregon and Colorado. Minnesota is still in the early implementation phase of its program.
“We want the descriptions to be consistent and accurate,” she said, while Alicia Cafferty with BSH Home Appliances Corporation North America added that “unified lists are very important.”
“We really want to reduce friction in getting into your program, so anywhere we can harmonize is essential,” Cafferty said.
Krysta West, deputy director at the Maine Forest Products Council, added that it doesn’t make sense for Maine to use different definitions than other states, because “those states have done it first and that is what producers will follow, because our market is so small.”
At times, attendees spoke over each other as they discussed why molded fiber is not considered readily recyclable and how it’s currently handled in the system. Others questioned how data from store drop-offs would factor into collection rates determinations.
A version of this story appeared in Resource Recycling on Apr. 22.
