« Go Back   « Go Back
Summary of Question 3

This proposed law would require all packaging used in Massachusetts on or after July 1,1996 to be reduced in size, reusable, or made of materials that have been or could be recycled. The proposed law would provide for exemptions for health, safety, and other reasons and would establish penalties for violations.

Packaging would have to be either reduced in size by at least 25% every five years; or designed to be reusable at least five times, with at least 50% of such packaging actually being reused; or recycled at a 50% rate; or composed of 25% or more of recycled materials (increasing to 35% on July 1, 1999 and 50% on July 1, 2002); or composed of materials being recycled at an annual rate of 25% (increasing to 35% in 1999 and 50% in 2002). The requirements would apply to any packaging or containers used to protect, store, handle, transport, display, or sell products.

These requirements would not be applicable to tamper-resistant or tamper-evident seals; packaging for medication or medical devices; packaging merely being shipped through the state; packaging required by federal or state health or safety laws or regulations; or flexible film packaging necessary to prevent food from spoiling.

The state Department of Environmental Protection could also grant exemptions for packaging that represents an innovative approach for which additional time is needed to meet the requirements of the law; or packaging made of material that cannot be reused or recycled, and cannot be made of recycled material, but is being composted at a significant rate; or products for which there is no complying packaging and for which compliance with the law would impose undue hardship (other than increased cost) on Massachusetts residents. A person applying for an exemption would pay a fee to be used, subject to legislative appropriation, to pay the cost of administering the proposed law.

The Department would be required to issue regulations to carry out the proposed law and would be required to investigate suspected violations. After issuing a warning, the Department could assess administrative penalties of up to $100 for each offense and up to $10,000 for any single shipment or single continuing act of noncompliance. The state Attorney General could also file court actions for civil penalties of up to $500 for each offense and up to $25,000 for any single shipment or continuing act of non-compliance, and could seek a court order requiring compliance. Each non-complying piece of packaging would be considered a separate offense or act of non-compliance.

The proposed law states that if any of its provisions were declared invalid, the other provisions would remain in effect.

1992 - Hampden County - Question 3Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 1992?

View as: # | %

Hampden County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
50,620
117,134
23,060 190,814
Agawam
 
3,387
8,547
1,614
13,548
Blandford
 
207
396
18
621
Brimfield
 
551
963
63
1,577
Chester
 
191
415
19
625
Chicopee
 
6,309
16,943
1,027
24,279
E. Longmeadow
 
2,183
5,076
307
7,566
Granville
 
272
462
24
758
Hampden
 
834
1,706
98
2,638
Holland
 
392
666
30
1,088
Holyoke
 
3,656
9,149
3,091
15,896
Longmeadow
 
3,127
5,703
544
9,374
Ludlow
 
2,398
5,894
546
8,838
Monson
 
1,167
2,426
171
3,764
Montgomery
 
166
246
39
451
Palmer
 
1,453
4,168
414
6,035
Russell
 
229
468
14
711
Southwick
 
1,126
2,355
222
3,703
Springfield
 
12,118
27,562
11,143
50,823
Tolland
 
98
84
7
189
Wales
 
275
518
24
817
W. Springfield
 
3,003
7,585
2,112
12,700
Westfield
 
5,316
11,325
618
17,259
Wilbraham
 
2,162
4,477
915
7,554
County Totals
50,620
117,134
23,060 190,814