Bottle Bill Basics

A bottle bill, also known as container deposit legislation, discourages litter and encourages recycling by placing a refundable deposit on containers of beer, soda and other designated beverages. The consumer pays the deposit at the point of purchase, then gets the deposit back when he or she returns the empty container to a redemption site.

Under Tennessee's 2008 bill, the deposit will be 5¢ on beer, soft drinks, mineral water, noncarbonated bottled water, juices, teas and other non-carbonated and carbonated drinks such as energy drinks. The redemption site may be either an independent, free-standing facility; a facility next to another business such as a convenience store; a mobile redemption center; a "reverse vending machine"; a portable roll-off trailer known as a "microsite"; or a "drop-and-go" redemption kiosk serving as a collection point for a central, electronic processing facility.

In addition to being reimbursed for the 5¢ deposit, the redemption center receives a handling fee of 3¢ for every container it takes back. This 3¢ fee is collected by the state from the beverage distributors to cover the cost of keeping their glass, plastic and aluminum packaging out of our landfills and off of our roadsides, and seeing that it gets returned to the manufacturing stream.

The redeemed containers are picked up regularly by certified recycling facilities, which provide transportation, verification and documentation in return for the scrap value. back to top

Do any other states have a bottle bill?

Bottle bills are in place in eleven U.S. states. Oregon passed the first refundable-deposit law in 1971, followed by Vermont in 1972, Maine and Michigan in 1976, Iowa and Connecticut in 1978, Massachusetts in 1981, Delaware and New York in 1982, California in 1986 and Hawaii in 2002. In addition, there are bottle bills in most Canadian provinces as well as many countries in Europe.

Most other U.S. states have tried or are trying to get a bottle bill. (More below.)

Do bottle bills really reduce litter?

Absolutely! If you have ever visited any of the bottle-bill states, provinces or countries, you have seen the impacts for yourself. The roads in these places are noticeably clean, and a main reason is the container deposit. States that tracked litter pre- and post-bottle bill reported a decrease in beverage container litter of as much as 84 percent (average was 78 percent), while overall litter decreased by as much as 64 percent (average was 39 percent).

It's hard to get an exact measurement of litter in these states today, because litter no longer warrants much of their time or attention. In Maine, for instance, the Department of Transportation is the only agency, whether state or local, that picks up litter on a regular basis. In most parts of the state, crews do litter duty just once a year, typically after the snow thaws in the spring. Maine has virtually no Adopt-a-Highway activity, and only one affiliate of Keep America Beautiful in the entire state. (And a spokeswoman for that affiliate agrees that Maine's bottle bill is a good thing for litter control.)

Compare this to Tennessee, where (in addition to 25 Keep America Beautiful affiliates and hundreds of Adopt-a-Highway groups) the Department of Transportation and the county sheriffs' departments have been sending out litter crews pretty much every day, every month, every year, for the past 26 years. Some roads get picked up as often as six or eight times a year. Tennessee keeps careful account of these litter pickups; the county pickups in particular are measured closely on behalf of the county litter grants. And what is the result?

In 2005, Tennessee's 95 counties recorded 17,438,376 pounds of litter for the year, or 2.9 pounds of litter per person.

In addition, TDOT contractors working the interstates picked up an additional half-pound of litter per person.

Grand total: 3.7 pounds of litter per person per year in Tennessee.

How does this compare to Maine, the state whose bottle bill most closely resembles the one we propose for Tennessee?

Well, we must say first that Maine's DOT doesn't track its litter closely. As we said, litter is just not an issue for them. However, MDOT officials were able to provide numbers for the agency's Southern Management Region. This region represents about one-tenth of the state's geographic area but 44 percent of its population (585,265 of the total 1,321,505 population).

According to MDOT, the various "camps" in the Southern Management Region collectively pick up an average of 18 to 20 tons of litter a year on the non-turnpike roads. In addition, during the six months from February through July 2005, the Scarborough camp measured its litter pickups along the southern (most-traveled) section of Interstate 95 (also known as the Maine Turnpike). The total for those 6 months was 19 tons.

To extrapolate a total littering figure for the whole state, we began by multiplying the 6 months' turnpike litter (19 tons) by 2 in order to get a total for the year (19 tons x 2 = 38 tons). To this amount, we added the higher of the range of 18-20 tons for the other roads in the region (38 + 20 = 58 tons). Since the Southern Management Region represents 44 percent of the state's population, we assumed it also represents 44 percent of the state's litter. (Actually, the Southern Management Region, being the most-populated and most-heavily developed part of the state, also has the most litter. But we wanted to err on the side of caution.) That gave us a statewide total of 132 tons of litter a year, or 264,000 pounds.

Finally, to get a per-capita figure, we divided 264,000 pounds of litter by the state's population of 1,321,505. This gives .199 lb--basically two-tenths of a pound per person. Two-tenths of 16 ounces is 3.2 ounces--rounded upwards, that's 4 ounces of litter per Mainer per year.

That's worth saying again:

MAINE: 4 ounces of litter per person per year

TENNESSEE: 3.7 pounds of litter per person per year

Why the huge difference?

Although bottle bills target beverage containers only, other types of litter end up being reduced as well, because bottle bills change behavior. Once people cease pitching their cans and bottles out the car window, they often cease pitching other types of litter, too. In addition, numerous studies attest to the fact that the cleaner an area is, the less likely people are to trash it.

The fact is, bottle bills are the single most effective tool yet devised to significantly and permanently reduce litter—more effective than curbside recycling, more effective than penalties, more effective than education programs, and certainly more effective than prisoner pickup programs. (In fact, social psychologists have found that if people routinely see prisoners or other government-sponsored litter crews cleaning up the roads, they are more likely to feel that it's okay to litter.)

This is not to say that these things don't have their place. Experts agree that the very best programs are those in which curbside recycling, citizen education and enforcement programs work in concert with a well-designed bottle bill.

So voluntary recycling alone—even convenient curbside recycling—isn't enough?

Voluntary recycling programs, whether curbside or drop-off, are necessary steps in the effort to keep empty containers out of our landfills and off our roadways. However, they are not nearly as effective as bottle bills in accomplishing this worthy goal.

Average annual consumption is now 724 container beverages per person per year—roughly two drinks per person per day. In states that have a bottle bill, the average recycling rate is 78 percent, or 564 per person. In states without a deposit, the average rate is less than 200 containers per person per year, or 27 percent. And here in Tennessee, where our container recycling rate is just 10 percent, we recycle a mere 72 containers per person per year—meaning every one of us (on average) throws away 650 bottles and cans every year.

Despite what you may hear from some recycling professionals here in Tennessee, recycling professionals nationally agree that bottle bills are not only effective, they are good public policy. In a December 2006 report by the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO), recycling professionals from selected cities across the country recommended a national bottle bill as one of the best ways to increase municipal recycling rates. To view the report, go to www.gao.gov/new.items/d0737.pdf.

Bottle bills not only raise recycling rates for beverage containers; they are linked to higher recycling rates for other household wastes, such as paper, cardboard and tin cans. Consider that the average municipal recycling rate for the 11 states with bottle bills is 31 percent, compared to just 20 percent for the 39 states without a deposit.

Moreover, while most deposit states have a municipal recycling goal of 50 percent, here in Tennessee we can't even reach our mandated goal of 25 percent set by the 1991 Comprehensive Solid Waste Reduction Act.

And keep in mind that here in Tennessee, curbside recycling is not widely available. According to the U.S. EPA, only 35 communities in the state offer curbside collection, one of the lowest rates in the nation. (See the next item for more on national curbside programs.) Few of these programs accept glass, some don't even accept plastic, and others are in danger of being scaled back due to budget constraints. And don't forget that curbside bins are used mainly for the beverages we consume at home. Almost all beverage litter is tossed from vehicles. back to top

Won't curbside-recycling programs suffer if you take away the aluminum cans?

No. According to every bottle-bill state administrator we've talked to, the revenues lost from aluminum sales are more than offset by the savings realized because municipalities no longer have to handle beverage containers made of plastic and glass. Glass and plastic are comparatively expensive to transport and hard to sell in the small volumes collected by curbside programs—that's why some cities don't even accept them. A study of the likely impacts of a bottle bill on Seattle's curbside recycling programs predicted overall system savings from a low of $236,917 to a high of $632,774. The study concluded that a bottle bill "would divert additional tonnage [from landfills] with no significant impact to either city costs or curbside recycling profits."

Cincinnati found that overlaying a beverage container deposit system with its curbside program would decrease the city's recycling costs from 94 dollars per ton to 72 dollars per ton. And in New York, dozens of local governments have endorsed that state's bottle bill because, among other benefits, it makes their local recycling and trash-handling programs more cost-effective.

Equally telling is the fact that some of the highest concentrations of curbside programs are in states with bottle bills: an average of 306 curbside programs per state, compared to an average of 151 in the non-deposit states. These numbers prove not only that the two systems can work side by side, but that deposit-container recycling does indeed spur recycling of other materials. According to EPA figures, New York has 1,472 curbside programs, the highest concentration of programs in the nation; Iowa has 574; California has 511; and even tiny Vermont, with a population of just 600,000 (49th out of the 50 states), has 80. Tennessee, with almost ten times as many people as Vermont, has fewer than half as many curbside programs (35). And many of those are threatened by budget cuts.

And finally, keep in mind that municipalities in Tennessee will have two direct ways to make money from a bottle bill. First, because some residents will continue to put empties in their curbside bins, municipalities will have the option of redeeming those containers at the rate of 5¢ per container. Second, county and municipal governmentscan choose to operate their own redemption centers, earning the 3¢ handling fee for the millions of containers redeemed—easily generating $130,000 or more a year. Such operations will generate far more revenue for local governments than any curbside program. back to top

But are beverage containers really that big a part of the litter stream?

They are a major part of the problem. Numerous surveys have found that in states without a bottle bill, beverage containers can make up the single largest category of roadside litter—typically 40 to 60 percent of the total.

For instance, a 1999 analysis of litter in our neighbor state of Kentucky showed that 48 percent of litter there consisted of beverage containers. That carefully controlled study, based on a methodology designed by the beverage industry and conducted in 23 counties by the counties' solid-waste coordinators, tallied each piece of litter at least one inch in size (cigarette butts were not counted). In addition to the 48 percent of litter that was beverage containers, another 4 percent of the total was beverage-related litter, such as carriers, pull-tops and bottle caps. Fast-food and takeout litter accounted for 19 percent of the total, with miscellaneous and “accidental” litter at 15 percent.

Unfortunately there has never been an objective, scientifically designed and statistically approved analysis of litter in Tennessee. In the absence of such data, the Tennessee Bottle Bill Project in November 2005 launched a series of unofficial litter pickups across the state. In this volume-based analysis, volunteers were asked to pick up beverage containers separately from other litter, using 13-gallon drawstring garbage bags only, filled as full as possible. (Very large items such as tires were recorded separately.)

As of April 2006 we had received data from 23 pickups representing 30.49 miles of roadside in 14 counties and involving more than 200 volunteers ranging from garden club members to trout fishermen to high school biology students to county prison crews. (To read a newspaper account from one of those prisoner cleanups, click here.)

The highest concentration of beverage containers was 78.5 percent along a rural stretch of road near two bars in Clay County, while the lowest was 24 percent along an urban street in Knox County. The average proportion of beverage containers for all counts was 50.42 percent.

This figure, though unscientific, is entirely consistent with our longtime observation that roughly half of Tennessee's roadside litter consists of bottles and cans. This estimate is based not only on these and earlier cleanups, but on other states' studies (such as Kentucky's) as well as the statements of people whose job it is to clean up Tennessee's roadsides for state and county governments: namely, state highway workers and county prison crews.

In Knoxville, for instance, a Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) maintenance supervisor "gueestimated" that bottles and cans account for at leat 60 percent of the litter picked up by his work crews. A group of jail inmates in Dyer County said flatly that 75 percent of their daily litter pickups consisted of beverage containers. And sheriffs, sheriffs' deputies and litter-program administrators in numerous other counties routinely say that containers are without question the number-one component of litter in their jurisdictions. back to top

Yet bottle-bill opponents call containers "a minor portion of roadside litter."

Of course they do. It's one way to defeat bottle-bill legislation. By claiming that bottles and cans account for an insignificant portion of roadside litter—they put the amount at as little as 5 or 6 percent—they bolster their argument that bottle bills have no real impact on the problem.

To support this claim, bottle-bill opponents are obliged not only to discount the documented experiences of existing bottle-bill states while ignoring or denying the results of studies such as Kentucky's; they must also provide studies of their own, many of which are either statistically suspect or are carefully crafted to support the desired outcome.

For instance, our opponents repeatedly cite a study published in the May 2005 issue of Resource Recycling, called "Sweating the Litter Things." This study was conducted by a for-profit consulting firm often used by the beverage industry; it was paid for by a New Jersey organization that is affiliated with Keep American Beautiful, and that gets most of its funding from litter taxes (special taxes on frequently littered products are among the opposition's preferred alternatives to container deposits). A key conclusion of the study—that beverage containers represent 6.4 percent of litter nationwide—was not based on a single Tennessee survey. Yet the opposition uses this study—and the 6-percent figure—almost exclusively when arguing against the bottle bill in Tennessee.

Another problem with the New Jersey study is that it, like virtually all opposition studies, is based on numeric (per-piece) litter counts, as opposed to calculations by volume or weight.

The problem with numeric counts is that they are easily distorted or exaggerated. For example, numeric surveys typically count every individual piece of litter in the study area, even if the piece was originally part of a larger item that has been torn apart or separated. A ten-page mailing can quickly get blown about into ten "separate" pages, each of which is then counted as a single instance of litter. The same is true of fast-food packaging "mulched" by lawnmowers or broken up by weather and wind. A paper cup, tossed out in one motion along with its plastic lid and straw, can later be counted as three separate offenses. Beverage containers, on the other hand, tend to remain intact as a single piece of litter, even if they are crushed or flattened.

In addition, some numeric studies tally every piece of litter found, no matter how small. According to this methodology, two cigarette butts constitute twice as much litter as a 64-ounce jug of Coke. While cigarette butts are a nasty problem and deserve to be addressed, their impact on the visual landscape is not nearly as severe nor as long-lived as that of bottles and cans—which can linger for decades if not centuries—nor do they have any recoverable value.

In short, opposition studies are highly selective and prone to "spin." A case in point is "Tennessee's Positive Approach to Litter Control," a position paper prepared by Edith Heller, the director of the state headquarters of Keep Tennessee Beautiful, to explain why KTB does not support bottle bills. (If you are surprised to hear that KTB—the official state affiliate of Keep America Beautiful—opposes bottle bills, be sure to read the next item in this series of questions and answers.)

Among its many arguments against bottle bills, the KTB document asserts that "bottles and cans are a minor portion of roadside litter." As evidence, KTB offers three statistically questionable studies, one of which was conducted by "a student in a winning junior-high science fair project in Washington County [who] collected 1,179 pieces of litter located 200 feet from a stop sign in three locations." According to this survey, 45 percent of the collected litter was cigarette butts; the rest was an assortment of paper, plastic, polystyrene foam, aluminum, glass and steel. While one might applaud the student's initiative, one cannot accept the methodology. For one thing, the sample was severely limited, consisting of just three small collection zones. Further, the three samples were not representative of Tennessee's litter as a whole, located as they were next to stop signs, where drivers waiting in line are prone to tossing cigarettes and other trash out the window and even dumping whole ashtrays onto the pavement. Finally, the terms of the study were grossly inconsistent. While one portion of the litter was categorized by product type (cigarette butts), the rest was categorized by material type (plastic, aluminum, glass, etc.). In short, the study is statistically meaningless.

Another way bottle-bill opponents subtly manipulate the evidence is to cite studies in which tire debris is a major component of roadside litter, especially pieces of rubber from blowouts or the so-called "alligator" strips of separated tire tread. We see two problems with using such studies to characterize litter. First, unless a tire is deliberately discarded, tire debris is almost entirely an inadvertent offense, and therefore not prone to be changed by education, punishment or any other form of littering-behavior intervention. Therefore, it is not valid to treat tire debris nor indeed any other "accidental" debris as co-equal with other, deliberate components of the roadside waste stream.

But even more to the point is the fact that, with the exception of interstate highways with their legions of 18-wheelers, tire debris simply is not a significant factor in the roadside mess in Tennessee. (Volunteers in our separated cleanup of Tennessee roads reported just 10 tires and three large pieces of tire tread in 30 miles.) Granted, there are plenty of deliberately dumped tires in the state's waterways; lakes and creeks are also popular dumping places for derelict cars, broken appliances and rolls of old carpet. It's disgusting and inexcusable. But criminal dumping is not the same as casual littering, it's not a significant part of roadside litter, and it certainly is not a valid reason to reject a bottle bill.

But all this hairsplitting is beside the point. The point is that there are too many bottles and cans along Tennessee's roads, and there are plenty of industries desperate to buy them. And that has to be the bottom line. back to top

Keep Tennessee Beautiful is opposed to bottle bills?

The state headquarters in Memphis has historically been opposed to bottle bills. (See "Tennessee's Positive Approach to Litter Control" by KTB Executive Director Edith Heller.) As for the two dozen local affiliates throughout the state, we are aware of two—Keep Knoxville Beautiful and Keep Blount Beautiful—that have actively spoken out against the proposed Tennessee bottle bill. Leaders of most other affiliates appear to be deeply torn over the bill, but their misgivings are based largely if not exclusively on the misinformation they receive from the state leadership and from speakers at KTB / KAB gatherings. Only one KTB affiliate that we know of—Keep Bristol Beautiful—has formally endorsed the bill, a courageous show of independent thinking for which the board deserves to be commended.

Keep Knoxville Beautiful in particular has been working aggressively to defeat the proposed legislation. In addition to criticizing the bill frequently in the press and broadcast media, former KKB Executive Director Tom Salter was a featured speaker at an "informational" breakfast for legislators sponsored by the Tennessee Malt Beverage Assocation. He accompanied grocery lobbyists when they visited newspaper editorial boards in the spring of 2006, decrying the bill as unsafe, unhygienic, unfair and unpopular. And he was the anonymous owner of several anti-bottle-bill websites launched in late 2005.

Though the websites have since been removed--they've been replaced by an industry-sponsored site called www.trashthebottlebill.com--they were pretty virulent as well as enormously misleading. For one thng, their URL addresses were misleadlinly similar to our own (www.tnbottlebill.com, www.tennesseebottlebill.com and www.tennesseebottlebill.org). Nowhere on their pages was their connection to Keep Knoxville Beautiful mentioned or acknowledged. (It took the skills of a web guru to track down the registered owner as Tom Salter of Keep Knoxville Beautiful.)

The sites contained no contact names, no phone numbers, no e-mail or snail-mail addresses, no funding or supporter information beyond the vague "Citizens for a Fair Hearing on the Tennessee Bottle Bill." There was a feedback page, but only two messages were ever posted. One of these was from Tom Salter himself. "Thanks for putting this website together," he wrote--presumably to himself.

Why would Keep Tennessee Beautiful not want a bottle bill?

Good question. Why would the state's premier litter-reduction group oppose a popular measure that has been shown to reduce litter? KTB people offer all kinds of reasons for this position, the main one being that, according to them, bottle bills don't reduce litter. But we think there are other reasons.

The first is money. Most KTB affiliates in Tennessee receive at least a portion of their funding from the beverage industries via the county litter grants program, which is funded by the beverage companies. For years, they have been told that they will lose that funding should Tennessee ever pass a bottle bill.

To explain why requires a brief history lesson.

Back in the late 1970s, Tennessee, like many other states, introduced a bottle bill as a way to reduce litter. The bill nearly passed. But at the last minute, under intense pressure from the beverage and grocery industries, the Legislature in 1980 created two new taxes to pay for litter cleanups, using non-violent inmates fron the county prisons.

Specifically, the lawmakers increased the existing beer barrelage tax by 50 cents per barrel, and the existing gross-receipts tax on soft drinks by 0.4 percent. The money generated through these increases was to go into the existing highway fund, where it would be shared out to the 95 counties according to a formula based on county road miles and population. The annual payouts soon became known as the "county litter grants."

The legislators further stipulated that if Tennessee ever passed a container deposit bill, the litter taxes would "sunset" (automatically terminate) as of June 30 following the passage of such a law. For years, this so-called "poison pill" has not only been used to quash any serious discussion of container deposits in Tennessee; it has effectively tied the hands and muzzled the voices of KTB leaders or volunteers who might otherwise have supported such legislation. (For more on the specialty taxes and the litter grants program, click here.)

Even though the 2007-2008 bottle bill explicitly protects the litter grants by replacing the current litter-tax funding (roughly $5 million a year) with $10 million of the unclaimed container deposits, many KTB leaders continue to insist that the bill will result in the elimination of Tennessee's litter grants, including that portion of the funding that goes to KTB.

So that's one reason KTB opposes bottle bills.

A second reason KTB opposes bottle bills has to do with what one might call family history and family loyalties. Discouraging bottle bills is a major part of why Keep America Beautiful exists. Not that you'll see the topic discussed on the KAB website. Indeed, if you ask, KAB will tell you it has no position on bottle bills one way or the other. But those familiar with the debate know otherwise. "That's baloney," said the leader of one of the few KAB affiliates located in a bottle-bill state. According to this leader and a number of others within the 565-affiliate KAB organization, the KAB culture is quietly but unmistakably hostile to bottle bills--an opposition that is decidely centered in the Southeast.

This opposition can be traced to the group's beginnings. KAB was founded in 1953 by a group of businessmen from Coca-Cola, American Can Company, Dixie Cup Company and similar other beverage and packaging interests whose principal goal was to deflect government regulation of their littered products. This was about the time that "no-deposit, no-return" glass bottles and metal cans had seriously begun to replace refillable glass bottles, and litter had surged as a result. It was also the same year that Vermont passed the nation's first beverage container law (a ban on throwaway beer bottles). The ban (which was repealed four years later) had been lobbied in large part by Vermont's dairy farmers, whose cows were dying in alarming numbers after ingesting bits of broken glass bottles and steel beverage cans.

KAB's public message was—and still is—that litter is everyone's responsibility. The premise seemed benign enough, and by the early 1970s, most of the country's major environmental groups had lined up behind KAB, including the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and even the newly formed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. According to a history of KAB compiled by the Container Recycling Institute of Washington, D.C., representatives of many of these groups joined KAB's advisory board, confident that KAB would support any reasonable strategy to reduce litter and encourage recycling, including bottle bills.

They soon learned otherwise. By 1974, two states (Oregon and Vermont) had passed refundable deposit laws, and several others were poised to follow, including Maine, Michigan and California. KAB's leadership was worried, and it made a decision to publicly oppose the proposed bottle bill in California. The organization's president, Roger Powers, even flew to Sacramento to testify against it. California's bottle bill would not pass for another 12 years.

As more and more states tried to pass bottle bills, KAB's opposition grew increasingly aggressive. In 1975, in conjunction with the U.S. Brewers Association, KAB launched the Clean Community System campaign as an alternative to bottle bills. These and other tactics were so successful, and apparently so persuasive with state legislatures, that few state bottle-bill efforts could withstand them. Indeed, Maine's and Michigan's bottle bills succeeded (both in 1976) only because they were put to direct citizen vote via referenda, bypassing the legislators altogether.

The environmental groups were growing increasingly disillusioned. At one point, Thomas Williams of the EPA's Office of Public Awareness wrote that the Clean Community System was nothing more than a public relations campaign whose effect was to "abort any local efforts to institute beverage container deposit systems."

In July 1976, during a speech at a KAB board meeting in New York City, the chairman of American Can Company, William F. May, referred to bottle-bill proponents as "communists"— even though some of those proponents were sitting right in front of him. May went on to call for an all-out KAB campaign to defeat the four bottle-bill referenda on that fall's ballots, including the ones in Maine and Michigan.

May's remarks made national news. Within months, more than a dozen environmental and citizen groups had broken ties with KAB, including the EPA, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and the League of Women Voters. Today, you won't find a single environmental group in KAB's online list of more than 250 community and corporate sponsors. Indeed, the only citizen groups listed are a handful of KAB's own affiliates. With the exception of the U.S. Department of Education, the rest are all large corporations or corporate trade groups, dominated by members of the beverage, packaging, fast food, tobacco and waste management industries, from Pepsi, Coke and Anheuser-Busch, to McDonalds, Tyco Plastics and even Wrigley's chewing gum.

Local representatives of these same industries are encouraged to serve on the boards of local affiliates. According to a leader of a former affiliate, this is one way KAB influences policy at the local level. Another way is to make KAB annual dues prohibitively high—reportedly as much as $6,000 or more per affiliate. To secure this kind of money, prospective affiliates are often obliged (and indeed are encouraged) to turn to the local beverage distributor.)

KAB insists that its affiliates are free to take any position they like on bottle bills. And it's important to note that some affiliates are in fact totally supportive of bottle bills, including affiliates in California, Iowa, Maine, Connecticut and Hawaii.

But it's also important to note that these are states that already have bottle bills. According to several affiliate leaders in these states, they are viewed somewhat as renegades or even outcasts by the larger KAB power structure. This helps explain why there are so few KAB affiliates in the 11 bottle-bill states—the average is less than 3, and Vermont, Oregon and Delaware have none at all. By contrast, states that don't have bottle bills have an average of 12.7 affiliates each, with the numbers strongest, by far, here in the Southeast: Tennessee has 25 affiliates, for instance, Florida 43, Texas 61 and Georgia 67. And Georgia, of course, is where Coca-Cola originated. back to top

But litter is only one impact of bottle bills. What about recycling and conservation?

It's easy to focus on the litter-control value of bottle bills, but in many ways their most far-reaching impact is on recycling rates and the conservation of natural resources.

According to USDA and industry sales figures for 2005, Tennesseans consume 4.2 billion listed beverages a year (by "listed," we mean the beverages that will carry a deposit under the proposed 2007-2008 bill).

While Tennessee does not track recycling rates for containers specifically, an analyst in TDEC's Division of Solid Waste Management estimates that it is "around 10 percent--if that."

Based on redemption rates in states with a comparable program and comparable demographics, we project that a Tennessee bottle bill will increase our container-recycling rate to 85 percent. (The more beverage types that are included, the greater the returrn rate tends to be.)

Increasing our recycling rate will save significant natural resources, because it takes less energy and fewer raw materials to make new containers from old ones. Recycling aluminum cans, for instance, takes 95 percent less energy than making them from scratch. Recycling also lowers water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and reduces at least to a small degree our dependence on foreign oil.

The environmental benefits of recycling are predictable, substantial and immediate. Here in Tennessee, even though we recycle only 10 percent of the 4.2 billion containers we buy each year, those we do recycle are responsible for saving more than 2 trillion BTUs of energy, enough to meet the total annual residential energy needs of Bristol and Brentwood combined. The recycled containers also help us avoid the strip mining, coal burning, mineral and oil extraction and other environmental impacts required to produce new containers from scratch. back to top

Won't it be hard to find markets for all these materials?

One of the beauties of living in this region—from a bottle bill's perspective, at least—is the extensive infrastructure that is already in place for processing and reusing used beverage containers. The largest glass recycler in North America, for instance, operates a plant in Ashland City, and its furnaces are hungry for more high-quality bottle glass. The corner of north Georgia near Chattanooga is home to 80 percent of the world's carpet manufacturing, which relies on PET plastic to make polyester carpet fiber. Mohawk Industries operates the world’s largest recycling plant for post-consumer PET. And then of course there's Alcoa, not far from Knoxville, with the largest aluminum-can sheet production facility in the world.

Tennessee is also blessed with several excellent private and public universities, engineering centers and research institutions, including Vanderbilt, the University of Tennessee, Tennessee Tech University, Arnold Engineering Development Center and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, which have produced a host of innovative technologies, efficiency studies and similar innovations. UT in particular offers a weath of services and expertise, from the Energy, Environment and Resources Center to the Waste Reduction Assistance Program of the Center for Industrial Services. CIS also tracks recycling markets via the Tennessee Materials Exchange; and the Tennessee Manfacturing Assistance Program works with industries to adapt to new markets and develop new technologies. The Institute for Public Service, the umbrella under which most of these programs lie, also hosts the Municipal Technical Advisory Service and County Technical Advisory Service, either of which could work with local governments who want to incorporate a redemption center into an existing recycling program. back to top

Is it true that bottle bills create jobs and small businesses?

Bottle bills have created tens of thousands of new jobs in retail, distribution, sorting, recycling and technology. Michigan, for instance, reported a net gain of 4,648 jobs after its bottle bill went into effect. Job growth is particularly active in states where legislation (like the proposed bill in Tennessee) creates a cottage industry of independent redemption centers. Since passing its bottle bill in 1986, California has seen 2,000 redemption centers spring up to meet the demand, many of them small "mom-and-pop" operations in rural and economically depressed counties. Often these redemption centers expand into small retail operations, selling beer, soda and snacks on one side of the store while taking in empties on the other. In Maine, an estimated 90 percent of all redemptions are done in these small businesses, which provide jobs to teenagers, retirees and moms who want to be there when their kids get home from school.

Bottle bills also create new jobs in transportation, handling and recycling, and in the growing field of redemption technology. And by increasing the supply of quality feedstock to established industries, they strengthen job security for existing workers in such fields as fiberglass production and carpet manufacturing.

In addition, when homeless shelters and other nonprofits launch their own on-site redemption centers, they create not just a steady source of revenue for their operations but a host of job-training and management opportunities for their clients. back to top

What other benefits can you cite? What about fewer cuts from broken glass?

This is an overlooked but very real benefit of bottle bills. Lacerations are the leading cause of children's emergency-room visits. After Massachusetts passed its bill in 1982, Children's Hospital in Boston reported a 60-percent decrease in lacerations due to encounters with outdoor glass. A more recent study in Philadelphia found similar results. Container litter is responsible not only for lacerations but also infections, insect stings and even twisted ankles and broken bones incurred when walkers lose their footing on partially hidden bottles and cans. back to top

Doesn't broken glass also hurt cattle?

Yes—not just cattle but other farm animals as well, which can die when they ingest bits of glass or broken metal. In fact, starting with Vermont's dairy farmers in 1953, farmers have traditionally supported bottle bills because of the costs to their operations, since broken glass, mangled aluminum cans and other container litter harm not just livestock but tires, farm machinery and even crops. The Pennsylvania Farmer’s Association estimated their collective costs from littered containers to be $37 million; a 1984 study by the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation determined that statewide on-farm beverage container damage cost Virginia’s farmers between $1.2 million and $3.5 million annually; and a . The New York Farm Bureau, which was instrumental in passing that state's bottle bill back in 1982, is now an advocate for expanding the bill to cover more beverages. And here in Tennessee, the farm bureau was a chief sponsor of the bottle bill that almost passed back in 1980, and a bottle bill continues to be listed as one of its legislative goals. back to top

What about existing costs for solid waste management? Will they go down?

Of course. When you save tons of materials from the waste stream each year, you are bound to spend less for pickup, hauling, landfilling and incineration. Oregon, for instance, recorded savings of $650,000 in a single year. Since passing its bottle bill in 1981, Massachusetts estimates that it has saved $15 million to $25 million not only in waste management costs but in costs for litter control.

Waste-management savings are one reason city councils, landfill operators and state and county solid-waste officials tend to support bottle bills. Here in Tennessee, each ton of waste diverted from a landfill not only saves anywhere from $15 to $75 in taxpayer dollars. The diverted waste helps counties get closer to the 25-percent solid waste diversion goal mandated by the state's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1991. At the moment, fewer than half the counties have achieved this modest goal. back to top

Container litter seems especially bad around lakes and other waterways.

Fishermen, marina operators, boat rental companies and other water-based businesses and enthusiasts report being plagued by empty bottles and cans. For marinas in particular, the constant expense and hassle of cleaning up the waterfront is a nasty and sometimes dangerous cost of doing business. However, most bottles and cans are not thrown directly into Tennessee's waters. When it rains, they are carried down gutters and into stormdrains leading to waterways. Once in the water they have a tendency to stay there, but not in one place. Because they can stay afloat for years, they migrate downstream and create an appalling flotilla that dismays boaters, picnickers, tourists and fishermen alike. Since clean water is a major economic engine related to outdoor recreation, tourism and real estate in Tennessee, these rafts of bottles and cans not only impinge on our quality of life; they can put a serious damper on our economic health. According to the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development, the economic impact of marinas, resorts and marine dealers alone is $10.6 billion annually, with direct tax revenues of $2.5 billion. back to top

I often hear visitors complain about the litter here. Does litter impact tourism?

See the statement above regarding resorts and marinas. It's hard to know if litter actually drives away tourists, conventions or other visitors, but obviously it doesn't make a very good impression. Numerous websites contain postings from tourists or recent transplants who were struck by two things when they got here: our natural beauty; and our litter. Hotels, resorts, theme parks and other tourism-based businesses all depend on making customers feel good about being here. That's not easy when Tennesseans themselves seem to treat their state with such apparent disrespect. back to top

Moving now to Tennessee's proposed bottle bill: what is its name and number?

See the Legislation page for more details, but in a nutshell:

The current bottle bill is titled the "Tennessee Beverage Container Deposit Act of 2007." The Senate version is SB1408 sponsored by Sen. Doug Jackson. The identical House version is HB1829 by Rep. Mike Turner. An additional 11 legislators from both parties have signed on as cosponsors.

Because the bill was not acted on in 2007, it has returned (with pending amendments) to be acted on in the 2008 session. This is possible because Tennessee's Legislature meets in two-year cycles called General Assemblies. The current (105th) General Assembly began in January 2007 and will end in May or June of 2008.

How much is the deposit going to be?

The bill calls for a fully refundable 5¢ deposit to be placed on most beverage containers sold in this state. back to top

What beverages are included?

The bill includes "beer, ale, or other drink produced by fermenting malt; mixed spirits; mixed wine; tea and coffee drinks regardless of dairy-derived product content; soda; or noncarbonated water, and all nonalcoholic drinks in liquid form."

The bill specifically excludes liquids that are syrups, concentrates, flavorings, medical foods, drugs, infant formula, dietary supplements, frozen liquids, instant drink powders, broths or soups (seafood, meat or vegetable), and milk and all other dairy-derived products except tea and coffee drinks containing trace amounts of milk products. It also excludes unmixed wine and liquor. back to top

What types of containers are included?

Under this bill, a "deposit beverage container" means an individual, separate, sealed container, 2 liters or less, and made of glass, metal (including aluminum) and plastic of any type, including PET and HDPE.

Each container will be marked with "Tennessee 5¢" or "TN 5¢." Refillable glass bottles must be permanently imprinted with both the brand name and a refund value of at least 5¢. back to top

How exactly does the redemption process work?

Well, first, you collect your empties. You don't have to sort them, nor are you required to rinse them, although they do have to be empty, and they must be intact (not crushed). You will then carry them to a state-certified redemption center, which may be either a free-standing facility, a "microsite" hosted by a store, a reverse vending machine or a "drop-and-go kiosk" outside a large supermarket. You may also be able to request a visit from a mobile redemption center, although we have no way of knowing how common these will be, as they have never been tried in any other state that we are aware of.

Most redemptions will be done at free-standing, mom-and-pop type redempion centers. In most cases a staff person will count your empties by hand (they do this very quickly), then issue your refund, usually as cash but in some cases as a paper receipt to be spent on product; or as a check (if you've redeemed a large number of containers, such as from a bottle drive or collection bin).

Many redemption centers also work with selected nonprofit agencies and organizations, such as a school group or homeless shelter, and will credit your refund, at your request, to one of these causes.

In addition to (or in place of) manual counting, some centers will use reverse vending machines or computerized processing technologies that automatically scan, sort and compact the containers at high volumes and high speeds. These units serve as the hub of a network of "drop-and-go" kiosks.

These and other options are explained below. back to top

How does a reverse vending machine work?

As the name suggests, reverse vending machines (RVMs) are automated redemption units, usually located on the premises of a retailer or independent redemption center, into which you feed your empty containers, usually one at a time although some large units accept containers all at once. The machine will scan the containers for the required imprints, record the imprint information to an internal data bank, crush or shred the conainers into separate storage hoppers, and dispense your refund as cash or a printed receipt. Some RVMs can credit the refund to an electronic courtesy card, and most will give you the option of donating the redemption to the "charity of the month." The state pays out the same handling fee (3 cents) for RVM returns as it does for returns at a staffed redemption center. back to top

What about mobile and portable redemption centers?

Mobile redemption centers are redemption centers on wheels, designed to provide traveling redemption services to residential customers, businesses, institutions, special events and the like, either on a regular or as-needed basis. Since Tennessee would be the first state in the country to authorize such a service, we can't predict precisely how mobile centers will operate.

Portable redemption centers, known as "microsites," are attended rolloff trailers located in the parking lots of willing grocery stores. When the trailer is full, the microsite operator arrives with with an empty one and hauls the full one away. Refunds are typically issued in the form of paper receipts that must be cahed or spent inside the host grocery store. In return, the store gets a share of the handling fee (one-half of one cent). back to top

And what about "drop-and-go" kiosks?

Drop-and-go kiosks work in partnership with large supermarkets and in conjunction with a centralized, automated processing facility capable of reading a bar-coded label and issuing refunds electronically. Introduced in Maine (with the name CLYNK) in 2006, this system requires customers to sign up in advance, much like signing up for a "courtesy card" at a grocery store.

Here's how it works: After you have signed up for a CLYNK account inside the kiosk (the kiosk is staffed during daylight hours), you buy a bundle of bags for 20 cents each and receive a stack of labels bar-coded with your account information. When the bag is full, you stick on a label, then take it to the kiosk located in the parking lot outside the grocery store. You hand the bag to a staff person (or, if after hours, you use your courtsey card to open a night depository). After you've done this (it takes an average of 8 seconds), you go on your way. Meanwhile, the collected bags are transported to the centralized processing facility. Here, your bar-coded label is scanned, the contents of your bag are fed into the automatic processing machine, the data are electronically recorded; and the refund is issued to your account.

Withdrawing from your account is much like using an anytime teller. You enter the kiosk, and using your courtesy card, you pull up your account on the electronic teller. You enter the amount you want to withdraw (or donate to charity). If the former, the machine prints out a receipt that you must take inside the grocery store either to redeem or to use toward more purchases. Grocers find that people spend more money when they have a paper receipt. It's one reason they offer redemption services even when they are not required to. back to top

Do I have to crush the containers before I return them?

Tennessee’s law requires that empty containers be intact (not flattened or crushed) and empty. back to top

What happens to the empty containers after I return them?

First, the redemption center will sort your empties by material and, if glass or plastic, by color. They may be crushed or shredded at this point to reduce their volume, but only if the center has a way to verify the counts. The empties, packaged in sacks or drums, will be put aside until they are picked up by a local, certified recycler or his agent.

Unless it is an electronic redemption center such as an RVM, counts must be verified by the recycler. This documentation will be submitted to the state, which will use it to approve the payment request submitted by the redemption center. Redemption centers may request payment from the state every two weeks. Once the request has been processed, the state has ten business days to issue payment: the 5¢ reimbursement for the deposit, plus the 3¢ handling fee.

Important note: Unlike the system in most deposit states, the beverage distributors have absolutely no role in the redemption, collection, transporting or recycling process. This feature is considered a major benefit not only to the distributors but to the redemption centers, who no longer have to sort containers by distributor, just by material type and color. back to top

Who keeps the money from sales of the scrap material?

The certified recycler gets to keep the scrap value in return for providing the pickup, verification and documentation service. Should periouds occur when the value of the scrap falls below the cost of processing it (not likely), the recycler will receive a subsidy from the program. back to top

Can I redeem a container I bought in, say, Kentucky? Or in another bottle-bill state?

No. You may redeem only containers originally purchased in Tennessee and on which Tennessee’s five-cent deposit was paid. (The redemption center will look for the identifying imprints.) If you try to redeem more than 24 containers not meeting these criteria, you will be subject to a fine of $100 per container or $25,000, whichever is greater. All fines collected will go into the state's container deposit fund, which will then "reward" the redemption center by giving it half of the collected amount. back to top

What if I buy the drink in a bar or restaurant?

If a beverage is intended to be consumed on the premises, the retailer (bar owner, restaurateur, etc.) will not charge a deposit but instead will collect the empty container from you and redeem it at a certified redemption center. If he likes, he can apply to become a certified redemption center himself. back to top

Can I bypass the redemption centers and just give my empties to, say, my kids' school?

As you have probably gathered by now, the answer is yes, absolutely. People in other bottle-bill states do just that, and it is one reason bottle bills have become so popular. Some schools report making $4,000 or more in a single day's "bottle drive," and many nonprofits include container donations in their annual budget. In addition, many redemption centers and reverse vending machines offer customers the option of donating their refunds to the charity of their choice or to the designated "charity of the month." Many communities, schools, churches, businesses and government offices put out donation bins, often adjacent to their vending machines. Most will either redeem the containers for various in-house projects; others give their empties to various worthwhile causes, and some give them to enterprising homeless people who stop by once a week.

In addition, some nonprofits, such as homeless shelters or Scout troops, have opened their own redemption centers where, in return for the responsibilities of running a small business, they make a reliable income via the handling fee. Homeless shelters in particular can use the facility to teach job skills from bookeeping to personnel management, as well as to provide jobs and a source of ready cash to local residents. back to top

Tell me again about the handling fees. Who pays that?

The handling fee (officially called the "beverage container fee") is essentially an administrative fee paid by beverage distributors for each container they manufacture or import for sale in Tennessee. The fee is collected by the state at the beginning of the production cycle, and paid out to the redemption center at the end of the cycle. The fee also pays for all personnel, administrative and other operating costs of the program. Ultimately it covers the enormous costs of keeping 200,000 tons a year of packaging out of our landfills and off of our roadsides, and sees that it is returned to the manufacturing stream.

The amount of the handling fee is 3¢. This is the recommended minimum if a state wants to operate an efficient program and ensure an adequate network of independent redemption centers. A portion of any unused fees is rebated to the distributors at the end of the year. back to top

But won't dealers raise their prices 3¢ to cover the cost of the handling fee?

Probably not.

An unofficial national survey of (regular, not sale) prices for a 12-pack of Pepsi in 2006 found that prices in the 11 bottle-bill states tended to actually be slightly lower than average prices in the 39 non-deposit states, and in almost all cases were equal to or lower than the average for their region—a trend that seems to hold true not just for Pepsi but for virtually all beverages. In fact, the states with the highest container handling fees, including Maine (3¢), Vermont (3¢) and New York (2.25¢), have some of the lowest beverage prices in the country. While this may seem counterintuitive, it merely reflects the fact that retail prices are a reflection of numerous market factors, only one of which is actual costs.

And keep in mind that beverage distributors in Tennessee will recover some money in other ways.

First, they will save the $5 million they are currently paying in "litter taxes" on beer and soft drinks. These taxes, which the industry agreed to impose on itself in 1980 specifically to fend off a bottle bill, are used to pay for highway litter pickups and litter education via the county litter grants program. Our bill replaces that funding with $10 million of the unclaimed deposits.

Second, the bill allocates a "rebate" to the distributors at the end of each fiscal year. The amount is one-half of the leftover monies in the program (unclaimed deposits, unspent handling fees, interest and fines) after deducting program costs, recyling subsidies, $10 million for the litter grants and $2 million for the property-tax reimbursement fund. This should be around $14 million a year for the distributors, paid out in the same proportion as the distributors paid in.

Third, keep in mind that by reclaiming 200,000 tons of scrap worth as much as $100 million a year, the distributors will at some level be helping to hold down their own costs. It is much cheaper to make new containers from recycled scrap than from brand-new raw materials. Even beverage companies admit that raw materials, especially plastic and aluminum packaging, are among their largest and fastest-growing expenses. back to top

How will the fees and deposits be handled?

This one is a little complicated. (It might help if you first look at the graphic pdf file, Follow the Nickel.) Here's how it works: For every container it manufactures or imports for sale in the state, the distributor will pay the state both the 3¢ handling fee and the 5¢ deposit. This money goes into a “deposit beverage container deposit special fund.”

The distributor will get the 5¢ back as soon as he sells the product to a retailer. The retailer will get the 5¢ back when she sells the product to customer. And the customer will get the 5¢ back when he returns the empty container to a redemption center.

The redemption center owner keeps track of all the refunds he pays out. Periodically (up to twice a month), he sends the state an invoice for reimbursement of the 5¢ refunds, plus payment of the 3¢ handling fees he is entitled to for each recycled container. The state pays this invoice directly out of the special fund. back to top

What if I don’t redeem my containers?

That’s your choice. However, if you throw it on the side of the road, chances are somebody else will pick it up and turn it in for your nickel! (That’s exactly what happens in other bottle-bill states—and one reason they have so much less litter than we do.) Of course, if you simply throw your empties in the trash and nobody redeems them, your unclaimed nickels will stay in the special fund for use by the state. So at some level, somebody benefits. back to top

And how much will these unclaimed deposits amount to?

It’s impossible to predict precisely how many people will choose not to redeem their beverage containers. However, given the redemption rates in states whose programs are similar to Tennessee's, we project a redemption rate of 85 percent. This translates to roughly $32 million a year in unclaimed deposits, based on Tennessee's annual beverage consumption of 4.2 billion units, as reported by the beverage industries and confirmed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. back to top

What will the state do with that money?

As mentioned above, the 2007-2008 bill earmarks $10 million for continued funding of the county litter grants program. In addition, it allots $ million to reimburse counties for any lost tax revenue under the proposed change to the "greenbelt law." Fifty percent of what is left will go to the distributors in the same proportion as they paid deposits in the first place; and the rest will be used for related purposes, such as litter control r recycling projects. back to top

I had heard that the litter grants will be eliminated if a bottle bill passes.

As we mentioned earlier, what will be eliminated are the specialty "litter taxes" on beer and soft drinks that currently fund the program. The program itself will continue; in fact, it will be markedly strengthened, not only because it will get twice as much money to do what it's been doing, but because it will have a lot less litter to deal with. back to top

A bottle bill sounds like a good idea. How many states did you say already have one?

Eleven states have bottle bills. The first to pass refundable deposit legislation was Oregon in 1971, followed by Vermont in 1972, Maine and Michigan in 1976, Iowa and Connecticut in 1978, Massachusetts in 1981, Delaware and New York in 1982, California in 1986 and Hawaii iin 2002. In addition, eight Canadian provinces and at least nine European countries have bottle bills. back to top

Has any state passed a bottle bill only to have it later repealed?

Good question--and the answer is no. Despite repeated attempts by the opposition industries, no state has ever repealed its bottle bill. In Maine, citizens trounced a 1979 repeal effort by a referendum vote of 84 percent! (This came just three years after the bill originally passed by a referendum vote of 57 percent—and after just one year in effect.)

Far from tyring to get rid of them, most bottle-bill states have expanded or are trying to expand their bills to cover a wider variety of beverages beyond the traditional beer, mineral water and soft drinks. (Bottled water and other non-fizzy drinks were not even around in the 1970s and early 1980s, when most bottle bills were passed. Today, they account for 27 percent of the beverage market, even as soda sales are declining.) Maine, for instance, added wine, liquor, bottled water, juices, teas and other non-carbonated and carbonated drinks in 1989. Vermont added liquor. And New York, Oregon and Connecticut are getting close to expanding their lists. back to top

Are bottle bills being considered in other states besides Tennessee?

As far as we are aware, bottle bill legislation is being actively pursued in West Virginia, Arkansas, Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina and Illinois. Several other states, including Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Virginia, Utah, Washington, Georgia and New Hampshire, have considered bottle bills in the past and may do so again. This is especially likely if Tennessee is successful. back to top

Why haven’t more states passed bottle bills? Doesn’t the public support them?

The public does indeed support bottle bills, typically by a ratio of 70 percent to 75 percent in states without deposits, and as high as 90 percent in the states that already have bottle bills. The latest poll of Iowa's citizens, for example, found that support for Iowa's bottle bill, already high at 85.4 percent in 1990, had increased another five points over the next five years and now stands at 90.5 percent. A reader's poll conducted by the Fairmont (WV) Times found more than 70 percent of readers supported a proposed bottle bill in West Virginia. And in an online poll running since April 2007 in the Lebanon (TN) Democrat, public support for deposits has not varied more than a few points from 75 percent. back to top

Okay, you've sold me. What can I do to help?

Well, first, you can make your views known to your state senator and state representative as well as any other members of legislative committees considering the bill. (See the Legislation page.) Next, you can write a letter to your local newspaper, explaining (now that you're an expert!) why bottle bills make such good sense. Third, you can fill out the forms on the Get Involved page of this website. Fourth, you can get your friends, neighbors, Sunday School class, bowling league, employer, Scout troop and everyone else in your universe to add their name or organization to what we hope will be a huge list of bottle bill Supporters. And finally, because all this citizen outreach doesn't come cheap, you can join or make a donation to Scenic Tennessee. back to top

Free web hosting for non-profit Community Service Organizations
provided by 1-2-Wonder Web Services