« 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 - Norfolk 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: # | %

Norfolk County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
138,234
178,477
15,886 332,597
Avon
 
795
1,789
105
2,689
Bellingham
 
2,411
4,605
244
7,260
Braintree
 
6,921
11,196
796
18,913
Brookline
 
16,365
8,336
3,026
27,727
Canton
 
4,134
6,433
568
11,135
Cohasset
 
2,226
2,169
182
4,577
Dedham
 
5,045
7,822
599
13,466
Dover
 
1,561
1,548
97
3,206
Foxborough
 
3,158
4,766
213
8,137
Franklin
 
4,382
6,926
370
11,678
Holbrook
 
2,017
3,476
245
5,738
Medfield
 
2,905
3,350
97
6,352
Medway
 
2,092
3,235
164
5,491
Millis
 
1,787
2,354
71
4,212
Milton
 
6,492
7,897
786
15,175
Needham
 
8,208
8,690
632
17,530
Norfolk
 
1,886
2,474
79
4,439
Norwood
 
5,669
8,989
802
15,460
Plainville
 
1,233
2,017
111
3,361
Quincy
 
16,501
22,837
1,864
41,202
Randolph
 
5,023
8,607
753
14,383
Sharon
 
4,314
4,719
233
9,266
Stoughton
 
4,426
8,120
625
13,171
Walpole
 
4,632
6,471
422
11,525
Wellesley
 
8,070
6,417
672
15,159
Westwood
 
3,318
4,651
426
8,395
Weymouth
 
10,844
16,052
1,558
28,454
Wrentham
 
1,819
2,531
146
4,496
County Totals
138,234
178,477
15,886 332,597