TRIP TO BRITISH COLUMBIA
TO ASSESS EFFECTS OF LITTER ACT
ON BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
TRIP TO BRITISH COLUMBIA
TO ASSESS EFFECTS OF LITTER ACT
ON BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
This Solid Waste Management Open-File
Report (SW-92of) was written by
LEANDER LOVELL
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
-------
Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-92of)
in the solid waste management series.
-------
TRIP TO BRITISH COLUMBIA
TO ASSESS EFFECTS OF
LITTER ACT ON BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
MAY 8 - 12, 1972
Summary
The British Columbia Litter Act, enacted in 1970, effective
January 1, 1971, and amended in 1972, requires a minimum H refund
per container (can or bottle) of beer or soft drinks. This is not a
deposit system and does not require separate identification of a
deposit in support of the refund. The purpose of the act, which had
legislative concurrence by both the government (Social Credit) and
opposition parties, was directed at preventing the proliferation of
litter on a scale comparable to what has occurred in the States. The
act has met with approval by the general public but was opposed by
major segments of industry which continue to express disapproval.
The effects of the act on litter could not be determined. The
parks and roadsides of British Columbia seemed generally free of
beverage cans and bottles, but it was too early in the tourist and
travel season to reach definitive conclusions. Government supporters
of the legislation say the act has had beneficial effects. Opponents
say there has been little change.
The act has had an impact on markets, prices, and retail sales of
soft drinks. The impact on beer sales and the brewing industry has
been negligible. For the most part beer was marketed in a standard
specification refill able bottle carrying a 2$ refund long before enact-
ment of the Litter Law. Beer in cans had achieved about 6 percent of
-------
2
the total market and is now down to about 1 percent as a result of
the increase in price to compensate for the refund.
Soft drinks, under the act, have seen the following developments:
Retail price increases amounting to 25 to 34 percent in the
case of 10 oz. cans to cover cost of the refunds
Soft drink sales increases in 1971 limited to about 1 percent
in contrast to recent trends of 8 to 9 percent per year.
Virtual elimination of nonreturnable (NR) glass containers.
These had accounted for 25 percent and refilTables most
of the rest.
Initial deli sting of all franchise (national) brand soft
drinks by the chain groceries and large supermarkets,
followed later by restoration of selected brands in
large (26-28 oz.) refiliable bottles. In all small sizes,
th* large stores have gone to cans and mainly store brands.
The convenience, "Mom ar.c Pop", stores made up in display
and sales of franchise brands for the drop in sales of
these brands by the chains.
The act has had no measurable effects on the collection and
disposal of solid wastes. However, the overflowing litter
receptacles in Vancouver parks and beaches resulting from
the garbage strike showed little =•:•*' , ,vCf littered
beverage containers.
Establishment by the chains, soft drink canners, and Canada Dry
-------
3
of a jointly financed Pacific Reclamation Company to
handle the returns and refunds on cans. The new system
was superimposed on the pre-existing depot system operating
for beer bottles. Customers were directed to the depots
for refunds. Following amendment of the act in 1972 to
require stores as well as depots to accept cans (and
bottles), Pacific Reclamation went out of business and
depots no longer received cans.
Under the depot system, can returns had been expected at 20
percent and actually reached 40 percent or more of sales.
Current returns to stores may be no more than 10 to 15
percent of sales.
The two glass container plants have lost sales—of NR bottles--
but for the moment are benefiting from the bottlers'
increased requirements for refilTables.
-------
4
The Litter Act
The British Columbia Litter Act, copy of which is attached, calls
for a minimum 2
-------
in 1971 that the stores of retail chains, under the leadership of
Safeway,the largest grocery retailer in British Columbia, were refusing
to take back containers on the ground that depots were in existence
for that purpose. The Safeway interpretation was tested in court by
a consumer in mid-1971. In an August 20, 1971, decision the court
agreed with the consumer but threw out the case on the grounds that
the act did not designate as a violation the refusal by the retailer
to accept container returns; nor were there penalties for the Safeway
type of action. Whereupon the government proceeded to amend the act
to make it mandatory for any retailer to accept and pay refunds on
their own containers. This amendment, effective in March 1972, had
an immediate impact on the depot receipt of soft drink containers and
on soft drink returns as a whole, to be discussed later.
Purposes of the Litter Act
The purpose of the act is to control litter. In a province
dependent on tourist revenue it was considered essential that measures
be taken to avoid the widespread littering that is characteristic of
highways and other public areas in parts of the States. The scope of
the Litter Act is broader than beverage containers, covering the litter-
ing of crown lands and disposal of domestic wastes — liquid or solid --
from campers, trailers, boats, or other recreational vehicles either
on land or fresh water.
Representatives of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation*
* Hon. W. K. Kiernan wears two hats as Minister of Recreation and Con-
servation and Minister of Travel Industry. Mr. John Buckley is his
Executive Assistant in both capacities. The letterhead includes both
designations.
-------
6
say that some months prior to introduction of a litter bill, there had
been "jawboning" of industry to take action on beverage containers,
but without result. The matter came to a head after the Prime Minister,
Mr. Bennett, saw a television commercial promoting nonreturnable
nonrefillable (NR) bottles as "throwaway."
Industry representatives—soft drink bottlers and glass and can
companies—maintain that there was talk by the Ministry, in explaining
need for the act,-of the hazards of littered broken glass and that
references were made to prospects for recycling. Mr. Buckley, of the
Ministry, indicated to the writer that the littering of cans and
bottles had gotten so bad in the U.S. that the government wanted to
anticipate by preventive action. While minimal in beer packaging,
cans were seen as a threat anjJ were already important in soft drinks.
Nevertheless the Ministry's proposed administrative regulation under the
act was initially directed at glass containers, with cans subject only
to a limitation on capacity, not the mandatory container refund. The
two canners were then operating at 55 percent or -heir one-shift capacity
and hence would have been little affected. However, the regulation
ultimately approved required refunds for cans as well as bottles.
Moreover there is some indication the Ministry's current thinking
has advanced toward promoting the refiliable bottle as the most acceptable
environmentally. This would react still further against cans. This
point came up in the Minister's statements to the writer on the rationale
for increasing the mandatory minimum refund from 2tf per container to 5
-------
7
Most of the discussion below on effects of the act is limited to
soft drinks since its effects on beer were minimal. The beer discussion
will be concentrated in one section at the end.
Consumer Reactions
Several spot surveys of consumer attitudes indicate the Litter Act
has had general approval. This was confirmed indirectly by a staff
assistant to the leader of the Loyal Opposition in the Provincial
parliament who confirmed that the opposition supported the bill in
parliament but felt it should be broadened to include wine and liquor
bottles. He also felt that retailers should have been obliged, from
the beginning, to take back the containers, as effected later by amend-
ment to the act. There was also some feeling the government should
move toward mandating a uniform soft drink bottle, an end that Mr.
Buckley had also seen as a possible additional measure.
Managers of a franchise (national brand) bottler and of a glass
container plant referred to surveys of consumer reactions by two univer-
sities in British Columbia which confirmed general popularity of the
Litter Act.
Effect on Sales
While the act may have public approval, it has, nevertheless,
reduced soft drink sales at retail. What the industry describes as a
reduction is the failure of soft drink sales to rise at the same rate
as in recent years. As explained by a representative of a national
-------
8
brand soft drink firm, total package sales of soft drinks in British
Columbia have been rising at a rate of 8 to 9 percent a year whereas
there was only a 1 to 2 percent advance in 1971.
It is not too clear whether the effects on sales can be attributed
solely to price increases. There has also been an element of confusion
from Ministry implementation of the act and from retailer decisions on
what soft drinks would be carried. Decisions by the major chain stores
to delist franchise (national) brands in all small containers to avoid
having to make refunds on other than their own private brands undoubtedly
threw the market into disarray. Moveover, changes in convenience
packaging were general. By becoming returnable for a refund, the NR
bottle lost almost its entire share of the market, being replaced by
refiliable bottles and cans, in the thousands of small stores, and by
10 02. cans and quart (26 oz. and 28 oz.) refi11 able bottles in the
chains. A major exception is the introduction of large size nonrefill-
able but resealable private brand soft drinks.
Refiliable bottles have been subject to deposit requirements in
British Columbia as in the states—2$ on 10 oz. and other small
containers and 5tf on the quart size (26 oz. and 28 oz.). Since the
act made no change in the deposit system, there have been no price
increases on these packages resulting from the act. As noted, NR
bottles went out of the market. Cans, now accounting for about 30 per-
cent of soft drink package sales (up from about 27 percent) experienced
price increases resulting from the costs of the refund system. No deposit is
-------
9
shown separately at the cash register on sales of canned soft drinks,
but empty cans returned to the store are refunded H each.
Price Changes under the Act
It has not been easy to determine what price changes, occurred
under the act. There were multiple prtce changes at wholesale result-
ing from misjudgment on the costs of running the refund system through
Pacific Reclamation and on the rate of container returns. The latter
factor also affected prices charged by franchise bottlers. The cos.ts
of cans and sugar have advanced in 1972 and tended to confuse the
description of price movements given by those interviewed. There were
fewer price changes at retail, but the timing and extent of these
changes have been difficult to assess months after the fact. The
following table gives some indication of the price changes:
Changes in Prices of 10-oz. Soft Drinks in Cans
in British Columbia: 1970-1972
Franchise brands Store brands
retail
10 for $.89
10 for $.95
9 for $.99
8 for $.95
7 for $.95
* Increases due to sugar, can and labor cost increases
** Increases from upcharges under Pacific Reclamation system. Reduction
due to withdrawal from system.
Mid 1970
Dec. 1970
Mid 1971
Early 1972
Current *
wholesale
(per case of 24)
2.80
2.92
(3.20
**)3.30
13.36
(3.48
3.00
3.25
retail
6 for $.79
NA
NA
(6 for $.93
16 for $.99
NA
-------
10
Thus before the latest cost increases in sugar and cans, prices
of 10 oz. canned drinks in chain stores increased from 8.9
-------
11
Effects on Private Enterprise
Industries involved in the soft drink business include the retailers
(chains, large supermarkets, convenience stores, vendors of drinks such
as drug stores and filling stations), the bottlers (franchise bottlers,
contract bottlers, other), canners (2 companies, at least one of which
bottles and markets a franchise brand -- Shasta), can manufacturers,
glass container companies, and bottle exchange or collection depots
(many of which perform other services).
At retail, major changes since passage of the Litter Act (i.e.
even before its effective date) have included virtual elimination of
NR bottles in all sizes below that of 26-28 oz.; del isting by the chain
grocery stores and major supermarkets of franchise (national) brands --
Coca-Cola, 7-Up, Pepsi-Cola -- in all sizes in cans or bottles below
that of 26-28 oz.; some compensatory expansion by smaller retailers
in their facings of national brand soft drinks in small size cans and
refillable bottles and in large size bottles; an initial unwillingness
on the part of the chains to accept and refund on cans, which was over-
come by amendment of the act in 1972, and a quick sequence between
deli sting of national brands and refusal to receive and refund on
national brand bottles.
The franchise bottlers have seen substantial shifts in their
markets from chain stores to the small independents. One bottler
stated to the writer that his business and that of franchise brands
generally had not lost out at the expense of the private brands and
* •>.
things were going to settle down, while acknowledging that a bottler
-------
12
seminar which included a panel of four bottlers produced no agreement
on present effects or future prospects. Another franchise bottler was
less sanguine. While agreeing, in remarks to the writer,that the word
"disastrous" (used by a representative of the British Columbia franchise
bottler in testimony before an Oregon legislative committee) was too
strong in describing the effects on franchise business, he felt that
the act and the chain store reaction had produced serious results for
the franchise companies. Representatives of the national brand companies
themselves put the case somewhat differently. The act had halted at
least temporarily, a growth in the soft drink business. While individual
bottlers, particularly the smaller ones with only NR bottle lines, were
hit hard, the franchise brands had generally been able to make up
through the convenience "mom and pop" stores what they lost in chain
store business. Moreover, there has been some swing toward the large
bottles, which were still listed by the chains. Finally, grocery store
business only accounts for 35 to 40% of total soft drink sales, the
balance consisting of on-premise drink sales over lhe counter and from
vending machines and package sales through non-grocery outlets.
One of the franchise bottlers was considering upping the deposit
level on small bottles from 2i to 5£ because of loss of refiliable
bottles on which he believes he is now getting less than 6 trips.
Small bottlers which had concentrated on NR bottles were hard hit
since retail stores were generally refusing to take such bottles and
since capital expense was involved in converting to refillables,to say
-------
13
nothing of the much greater expense in installing can lines. Such
bottlers could shift to contract canning but this was not a hopeful
direction to take.
The one canner to whom the writer spoke cans on contract for both
Safeway and Coca-Cola and, in addition, is a franchise bottler and
canner of Shasta beverages. This company joined with the other canner
(Multipak Custom Canners), the chain stores, and Canada Dry in setting
up Pacific Reclamation Company to handle the return of cans—mainly
financing the refund system and the costs of participants. The can
business has grown under the act from about 27 percent to about 30
percent of the package business; consequently canners have apparently
improved their position.
Can manufacturers' business would reflect beer as well as soft
drink demand. Since beer sales are important in B.C., the decline in
canned beer from a recent 6 percent of the market to about 1 or 2 percent
would certainly adversely effect the can manufacturer. How much of
this decline will have been made up through sales to soft drink canners
is in question.
The glass container companies are in immediate trouble because
of the act through loss of the NR soft drink business. Temporarily,
at least, this has been compensated for by orders for refill able
bottles to take up the slack. The glass container story is complicated
by the fact that up until 1970 there was only one glass container manu-
facturer in British Columbia, although some containers were being shipped
-------
14
in. This company, Dominion Glass, is a branch of a firm headquartered
in Montreal (which ranks sixth in size in North America). In 1970 after
a market survey the Consumers Glass Company, another Canadian firm,
established a plant in B.C. From initial entry and acquisition of 25
percent of the brewery business, the new plant now has 50 percent of the
beer trade and supplies the soft drink bottlers as well. (There is not
much fruit or vegetable canning or bottling in B.C.). Nevertheless
by early 1971 only two out of six bottle machines in the new plant
were in use. While the situation is a little better now, it fluctuates
with orders for refillables.
Representatives of Dominion stated flatly that their business was
hurt by the act and that some 250 to 300 employees in the Calgary and
Vancouver plants, with total personnel of 900, were dropped. It was
denied that this was due in any way to the increased competition. Alberta
(the Calgary plant) has recently passed a litter act very similar to
B.C.'s. Consequently the drop in employment may reflect the situation
in both provinces. It was noted that the only saving feature of the
B.C. situation is that NR's are a relatively small part of the package
business. The original Ontario proposals, similar to the B.C. and
Alberta acts, would have cut deeper because NR's are 60 percent of
the package business in that province.
Effects on depot system
A depot system was already in existence for some 50 years prior
to the Litter Act, for the return of beer bottles which were refunded
-------
15
at the rate of 2
-------
16
nor did the other major franchise bottlers located in Vancouver and
Victoria, two of whom bottled Coca-Cola and one of whom bottled Pepsi -
Cola, 7-Up, Schweppes, and Crush (a Canadian owned line of soft drinks).
Eventually and for a short period two of these three franchise bottlers
joined along with the two glass container companies. The ups and
downs of their participation in Pacific Reclamation was largely
influenced by food chain willingness or unwillingness to stock and
display the franchise brands.
The Pacific Reclamation arrangement was superimposed on the
already existing depot system for beer although other individuals
(consisting often of retirees) were also encouraged to set themselves
up as depots. The financing arrangements arrived at to make the soft
drink system work included several elements.* The 2<£ per container
refund due the consumers was the overriding element. The payment
factors included the following:
Reimbursement, cents
per case of 24 cans
To the consumer 48
To the depot 8
To the central depot or
agent for collecting and
flattening cans 12
Administrative costs
(Pacific Reclamation) 1_0_
TOTAL 78
*These arrangements were patterned somewhat on beer but were necessarily
more complicated. The single beer return system is discussed in a
separate section.
-------
17
To finance this system the canners charged 12tf a case, on the
assumption that returns were expected to be no more than 20 percent of
sales and that there would be net income from the sale of can scrap.
As 1971 wore on these expectations proved unfounded. .The administrative
costs included above had not been anticipated. The freight cost on
can scrap shipped to M. & T. Chemicals in Seattle (for eventual use
in copper precipitation) equalled the price received for the scrap.
Finally, the rate of consumer return of cans was double what was expected,
amounting to over 40 percent of sales, providing costs per case of soft
drinks sold of 15.6tf compared to the 12tf upcharge. The canner upcharge
was repeatedly increased to provide income to run the system, finally
reaching 48£, equivalent to the refund value of a case and four times
the original upcharge. Meanwhile Pacific Reclamation had run up a
deficit of $300,000 because of levels which were too low to begin with
and suffered the coup de grUke when the act was amended in May 1972
to require retailers to refund on (up to 18 per person per day)
containers of the brands they sold. In a "chain" reaction, the food
chains stopped paying the upcharge, Pacific Reclamation stopped paying
the depots, and the depots stopped taking in soft drink cans. Pacific
Reclamation went out of business still owing money to the depots for
cans accumulated.
Reactions to the depot system varied. Both depot operators
interviewed told the writer they welcomed the additional volume of
the soft drink cans and had hoped for continuation of the system. They
.*
claimed more cans would be returned through such a system than through
-------
18
the vendors. One of the two depots, a central depot or agent, had
moved to a larger location, installed can flattening equipment (used),
and bought some trucks. Consequently he was out more than the smaller
depots who had c§n inventories which would eventually be compensated
by the organizers of Pacific Reclamation. The central depot had
managed (since March of this year) to contract with Safeway to pick
up cans returned from stores to a central warehouse in the Vancouver
area. He also picks up cans from separate stores of a smaller chain
and bottles as well as cans from the liquor stores in his territory.
In a relatively recent arrangement, after collecting and flattening
the cans he hauls them to the Brittania mine of Anaconda, about 50
miles north, for copper precipitation. The delivered price on the
can scrap is $35 a ton. Bottles of imported beer are collected by
the agent, broken up, and sold to the Dominion Glass plant for $15
a ton.
During 1971 under the act this central depot worked out a route
collecting glass from depots in outlying area, whicn was then delivered
to the Vernon plant of Consumers Glass (some distance from Vancouver).
On the return leg of the route cans were collected for return to the
premises in Vancouver.
The claim that more cans would return under the depot system
than to retail stores seems to be borne out in statements by other parti-
cipants in the soft drink business. As noted, can returns to depots
reached 40 percent of sales and a 50 percent rate was anticipated by a board
-------
19
member of Pacific Reclamation. This same contact indicated returns
of his cans to a small chain since the recent amendment of the act
were running currently at about 20 percent. An official of a larger
chain told the writer returns were about 10 percent and were consti-
tuting such a small problem that consideration was being given to relist-
ing the franchise brands. In other words, earlier fears of having to
take in cans from drinks sold by other stores had been largely overcome.
The depot system seemed to have general approval from interviewees
if for no other reason than the sanitation aspects of store receipt of
empty containers. Can returns appeared to be viewed in a worse light
than bottle returns. Several pointed out that garbage collectors
scavenged cans for refund at depots. This was confirmed by an engineer
in the North Vancouver sanitation agency and by the central depot
operator who exhibited a batch of cans recently received which were
partly rusted through.
One dissent from approval of the depot system was largely directed
at the financial arrangements needed to run it. This interviewee fore-
saw that Pacific Reclamation would generate excessive administrative
costs partly supporting what he considered the luxurious appointments
now found in the offices of Pacific Brewers Distributors Ltd.
The beer system
In British Columbia beer is sold largely through provincial liquor
stores under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. On-premise
beer sale and consumption is by license, and some package sales occur
through the bars and hotels. Traditionally beer is packaged in a
-------
20
uniform amber colored refillable bottle. Most liquor store sales seem
to be by the 12-bottle case, although some 6-bottle cases were seen
in the one liquor store visited and in the depots.
The bottle return system is operated through Pacific Brewers
Distributors, Ltd. an organization owned by the domestic breweries
(believed to be six) serving British Columbia. Pacific Brewers manages
bottle returns through a province-wide chain of depots and central
depots or agents. Prior to the act all beer bottles were returned to
the depots where the consumer received refunds at the rate of 25$ for
12 bottles. The agent picks up bottles (or receives delivery of
bottles) from the depots, pays the depot 29$ a case, loads the cases
on pallets (160 cases to the pallet), and trucks them to the brewery
or to Pacific Brewers itself, as directed by Pacific Brewers. Since
the bottle used is uniform and interchangeable, exact control is
exercised over the destination of the empties, quantities being based
on beer sales of the individual breweries. Controlled sale (mainly
through about 150 government outlets) plus controlled returns are
needed in order to support use of a uniform bottle.
A depot that shi-ps directly, without an agent as intermediary,
receives 30$ (rather 29$) from Pacific Brewers. The agent, whose role
is described above, gets 3$ per case above the 29$ from Pacific Brewers.
A case of 12 bottles of beer sells currently fcr $2.70 plus a tax
of $.14 in the government liquor store. There is no separate bottle
deposit in the transaction.
-------
21
Canned beer introduced by one brewery in 1966 and in seven other
brands in 1968 (for a total of 8 out of 45 brands marketed in B.C.)
had achieved about 6 percent of sales when the Litter Act came along.
The case price for cans was 10$ more than on bottles, or $2.80, but
the bottle price allowed for refunds whereas there were no refunds on
cans prior to the act. Under the act, the retail price of canned
beer was increased a full 25$ a case immediately, thus upping the
differential over bottled beer to 35$. This affected the market and
canned beer sales have declined to about 1 or 2 percent of total
package sales.
The Litter Act had minimal effects on beer. No changes in bottled
beer prices occurred because of the act. Bottled beer may have bene-
fited from the decline in canned beer sales which were, however,
a small part of the market.
Theoretically the beer distribution system, based as it is
largely on refiliable bottles, should be highly acceptable to the
government. Ironically, however, beer bottles appear to cause a
good part of what litter problem there is in the province. It was
noted by the writer that container littering at scenic overlooks
consisted largely of smashed beer bottles. There was little evidence
of littered soft drink containers. A depot operator in Victoria
indicated he has periodic visits from a farmer who picks up along
the highways and elsewhere in upper Vancouver Island as many as 100
cases of empty bottles for refund at the depot. Part of the beer
bottle situation is caused by another B.C. law which makes it a serious
-------
22
offense to be caught with an empty beer bottle in the car. Theoretically
even a part empty case would be an offense. In any case, this would
encourage getting rid of the bottles even to the extent of bundling
them up for deposit in a litter can, as noted once by the writer.
The general manager of Pacific Brewers indicated bottles now have
a trippage of 9 - 10. Some 6 percent a year are replaced.
Effects on littering and solid waste management
The city of Vancouver was in its second week of a garbage strike
(municipal collection) at the time of the writer's visit. This pro-
vided opportunity to get a view of overflowing litter cans in public
areas but made it unwise to take the time of operating officials for
a discussion of effects of the Litter Act. While considerable paper
and plastic wrappings and some food containers were observed around
the litter cans, these areas and the parks and streets were remarkably
free (by U.S. standards) of littered containers, either soft drink
or beer.
An operating official of North Vancouver, a separate municipality
not on strike, was interviewed on effects of the act. Although he con-
sidered the act a good thing and although by personal observation
believed it had reduced litter, the municipality had no data to indicate
a change in litter or solid waste loads or costs as a result of the
act. He gave the impression it had produced no cost reduction. He
confirmed that garbage men had picked soft drink and beer cans for
refund. However, he cited the tonnage record of three crews on one
shift as indicating it would have been virtually impossible for them to
have spent time digging through household waste.
-------
23
PERSONS INTERVIEWED
VICTORIA
B.C. Dept. of Recreation & Conservation
B.C. Dept. of Travel Industry
Hon. W. K. Kiernan, Minister
John Buckley, Exec. Asst. to Minister
B.C. Dept. of Municipal Affairs:
Don South, Chief Planning Offices
Goodwill Bottling Co.:
Bill Sherwood, General Manager
Victoria Bottle Exchange:
Jake, manager
B.C. parliament:
Mr. Wood, assistant to Mr. David Barrett, leader of the
Loyal Opposition
VANCOUVER
Pepsi-Col a:
A. C. Goetz, Jr., VP, Government and Corporate Relations for
Pepsi-Cola, Canada, Ltd., Montreal
Lloyd Curtiss, Manager, Environmental Affairs Department,
Pepsi^Cola, USA
;--"1D
Gray Beverages:
-------
24
Dominion Glass Company, Ltd.:
J.E. Souccar, VP Marketing, Montreal 101
PO Box 190
Jack Wallace, Regional Sales Mgr., Western District
Pacific Brewers Warehousing, Ltd.:
R. A. Smoker, General Manager
Shasta Beverages, ltd.:
W. B. Thomson, General Manager
Super Value Stores:
Ken Williams
Coast Container Refunding. Ltd.:
North Vancouver
Art Schopp, manager
City of North Vancouver, Office of the Engineer:
Mr. Excel!, engineer in charge of program management
Greater Vancouver Regional District:
F. R. Bunnel, Commissioner
+ Manager of a Super Value store
Manager of a produce market (flowers, et a!)
Personnel of a delivery grocery business
Floor man of a B.C. liquor store
ya723
-------
1970
LITTER
CHAP. 22
Short title.
Interpretation.
Sale subject
to refund.
(C)
Litter Act
[Consolidated for convenience only, May 1,1972]
1. This Act may be cited as the Litter Act. 1970, c. 22, s. 1.
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) "enforcement officer" means a peace officer and includes a
conservation officer, park officer, forest ranger, and such other
persons as may be designated or appointed by the Lieutenant-
Governor hi Council as enforcement officers under this Act;
(&) "class" means the identification of a container by either
(i) the name of the manufacturer or distributor desig-
nated on the container; or
(ii) the brand or trade name of the product designated
on the container; or
(iii) the particular liquid in the container;
"litter" means
(i) rubbish, garbage, or waste materials, including con-
tainers, packages, bottles, cans, or parts thereof; or
(ii) any abandoned or discarded article, product, or
goods of manufacture; but not including wastes of the primary
processes of mining, logging, sawmilling, farming, or manu-
facturing;
(d) "kind" means either
(i) a refillable glass container; or
(ii) a non-refillable glass container; or
(iii) a non-refillable metal container; or
(iv) a plastic container;
(e) "minister" means the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.
1970, c. 22, s. 2; 1972, c. 33, s. 1.
3. (1) No person shall sell or offer for sale beer, ale, carbonated
beverages, or drinks in a glass, plastic, or metal container for consump-
tion or use off the premises on which they are sold or offered for sale
unless the person undertakes to refund and does refund to the purchaser
on delivery up of the container to the premises at which they are sold or
offered for sale the sum of not less than two cents for each container or
such other greater amount as may be prescribed by regulations of the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person may make arrange-
ments with an agent, or with a wholesaler or a distributor in the same
locality, to provide a depot, convenient for his customers, for the accep-
tance of containers purchased from him and for refunds to the purchaser
as required under subsection (1), and a purchaser may elect to deliver up
2468-1
-------
CHAP. 22
LITTER
18-19 ELIZ. 2
Uttering
prohibited.
the containers at the premises at which they are sold or offered for sale,
or at a depot provided under this subsection; but, in any case, the refund
prescribed by subsection (1) shall be made at the place to which the
containers are delivered.
(3) This section applies to a Government Liquor Store under the
Government Liquor Act.
(4) A person may refuse to accept delivery of a container, or to
refund the amount prescribed under subsection (1), if the container
(a) is not of the kind and class he sells or offers for sale; or
(b) is in a flattened, damaged, dirty, or rusty condition; but dents
or damage to extract the contents thereof shall not be con-
sidered to be damage under this subsection.
(5) Any person referred to in subsection (1) who refuses, neglects,
or fails to give the undertaking, or to carry out the undertaking, or to
make the refund required under this section is guilty of an offence and
is liable to the penalties prescribed hi this Act. 1970, c. 22, s. 3; 1972,
c. 33, ss. 2-4.
4. No person shall discharge, dump, discard, or dispose of litter on
any land or fresh water or ice thereon, except
(a) in compliance with a permit issued under the Pollution Control
Act, 1967; or
(&) where Utter is burned in compliance with the Forest Act, or
a by-law, permit, or licence of a municipality or village; or
(c) by burying and covering with not less than twelve inches of
clean soil; or
(d) where disposal facilities are provided, in compliance with
proper and accepted methods of disposal using those facilities,
and in accordance with the Health Act and regulations. 1970,
c. 22, s. 4; 1972, c. 33, s. 5.
Discharge of
sewage
prohibited.
5. No person shall discharge domestic sewage or waste from a trailer,
camper, portable housing unit, boat, or house-boat. " to any fresh water
or watercourse or ice thereon or on land, except
(a) in compliance with a permit issued under the Pollution Control
Act, 1967; or
(b) where disposal facilities are provided, hi accordance with
proper and accepted methods of disposal using those facilities,
and hi accordance with the Health Act and regulations; or
(c) by excavating a pit on land and burying and covering the
domestic sewage or waste with not less than twelve inches of
clean soil. 1970, c. 22, s. 5; 1972, c. 33, s. 6.
No person shall establish or maintain a camp on any land
camping. Q
unless
(a) toilet and sanitary facilities are provided and properly used; or
(b) the person excavates and maintains and uses a pit toilet.
2468-2
-------
1970
LITTER
CHAP. 22
Offences and
penalties.
Ticket of
summons.
(2) No person shall abandon or leave a camp unless he first buries
and covers the pit toilet with at least twelve inches of clean soil. 1970,
c. 22, s. 6; 1972, c. 33, s. 7.
7. A person who contravenes any provision of this Act or of the
regulations or who refuses, omits, or neglects to fulfil, observe, cany out,
or perform any duty, undertaking, or obligation thereby created, pre-
scribed, or imposed, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary
conviction to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or to a term
of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or to both such a fine and
such imprisonment; and, if the offence is of a continuing nature, to a
fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for each day the offence continues.
1972, c. 33, s. 8.
8. (1) For the contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or
the regulations, an information may be laid and a summons issued by
means of a ticket in accordance with this section instead of the procedure
set out in the Summary Convictions Act.
(2) A ticket may be composed of any one or more of the following:—
(a) Information:
(b) Summons:
(c) Enforcement officer's record:
(d) Report of conviction.
(3) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) to prescribe the form of tickets;
(b) to define any word or expression used in the regulations;
(c) to authorize the use on tickets of any word or expression to
designate an offence under this Act or the regulations; and
(d) respecting any matter that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
deems necessary for the use of a ticket.
(4) The use on a ticket of any word or expression authorized by this
Act or the regulations shall be deemed sufficient for all purposes to
describe the offence designated by such word or expression.
(5) An enforcement officer shall sign the ticket and shall indicate
the offence charged on the ticket by marking or punching the box that
shall be to the left of the word or expression describing the offence
charged as printed on the ticket; or if the word or expression describing
the offence charged is not printed on the ticket he shall write it in the
space that shall be provided.
(6) A ticket summons may, without the swearing of an information,
be delivered by an enforcement officer or by registered mail to the person
charged with an offence, and the delivery of the ticket summons to the
person shall be deemed to be personal service of the summons upon the
person. 1970, c. 22, s. 8.
2468-3
-------
CHAP. 22
LITTER
18-19 ELIZ. 2
Regulations. 9 por jjjg pUrpOse of carrying out the provisions of this Act accord-
ing to their intent, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make such
regulations and orders as are ancillary thereto and not inconsistent there-
with and as are considered necessary or advisable; and every regulation
or order made under this section shall be deemed part of the Act and
have the force of law; and without restricting the generality of the fore-
going may make regulations
(a) respecting containers, the refunds thereon, and the disposal
thereof under section 3;
(fc) exempting any container or sales thereof from the provisions
of this Act and prescribing the conditions of such exemption;
(c) respecting the disposal of litter and domestic sewage and
waste; and
(d) where authorized, respecting the construction and maintenance
of litter and sewage pits. 1970, c. 22, s. 9; 1972, c. 33, s. 9.
Subject to
Pollution
Control Act,
1967.
Commence-
ment.
1C. This Act is subject to the Pollution Control Act, 1967. 1970,
c. 22, s. 10.
11. (1) This Act, excepting section 1 and this section, comes into
force on a day to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor by his Proclama-
tion and he may make separate Proclamations bringing into force the
several provisions of this Act.
(2) Section 1 and this section come into force on Royal Assent.
1970, c. 22, s. 11.
[NOTE.—Litter Act proclaimed in force July 1,1970, Gazette Vol. 13,
June 4, 1970.]
Printed by K. M. MACDONALD, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty
in right of the Province of British Columbia.
1972
1M-472-3023
2468-4
------- |