Refund Increase to Boost Return of Empty Cans Urged

A “two-for-a-nickel” refund program would boost the low return rate of empty beer and soft drink cans and bottles, the author of the state’s fledgling beverage container recycling law said Thursday.

Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D-Los Angeles) contended that the penny-per-container deposit is not enough money to attract a big volume, so many recyclers may have to close their doors.

“A move away from copper to silver would increase consumer interest,” said Margolin, who also told the Natural Resources Committee that the Legislature must act soon to save a program that looks as if it is headed for trouble.

The chairman, Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), agreed, saying he also was concerned that the recycling refund program, which went into effect last October, was “in danger of collapsing due to the low redemption rate.”

A 20-year fight produced the compromise law that applies to beer and soft drink aluminum cans and bottles. The penny per container is paid by distributors and can be passed on to consumers as part of the product’s price. Consumers can get the penny back by returning the empty containers to recycling centers.

But the recycling rate for empty cans and bottles has been running only about 50%, as compared to the law’s goal of 80%, according to Margolin.

He described the “two-for-a-nickel” approach as allowing consumers to look at an empty six-pack and know it would be worth 15 cents to them if they returned it to a recycling center. “They will look at this whole program differently,” he said.

The Southern California lawmaker also criticized the Department of Conservation’s administration of the recycling program.

Margolin claimed that enforcement has been “too slow and too timid” to force recycling centers to comply with various provisions of the law.

‘Public Frustration’

For example, he said “public frustration” results when a consumer takes his or her empty bottles and cans to a recycling center and finds it closed despite an “open” sign.

There have been some problems, Director Randall Ward admitted, but he also noted that the recycling program is still in its infancy stage. “We did not anticipate the severity of the problems,” Ward said. “We recognize we have a responsibility to enforce the law, but there are practical issues connected to the start-up of any program.”

A spokesman for Californians Against Waste, Bill Shireman, said the industry probably would prefer a state subsidy to the “two-for-a-nickel” refund program because the latter would cost them more money up front. Margolin said he was opposed to the subsidy approach.

Shireman added: “The reality of the system we have is that it does not now meet the quality that Californians deserve.”

Refund Not Enough

Representatives of three recycling companies that operate most of California’s 2,400 redemption centers agreed that the penny refund is not enough money to ensure profitability or to motivate consumers to turn in their empties.

But they also argued for other changes in the recycling law to make the program more efficient.

“We’re here to make money,” said Bruce H. DeWoolfson, the president of Environmental Products Corp., “so it is to our own best interest to have an effective operation.”