Law 36-26 vs. Law 98-25: What Changed, What Stayed the Same, and What Your Company Must Do Now

Why There Is So Much Confusion Between These Two Laws

Since Law 98-25 was enacted, many Dominican companies are unclear about what remains in force from Law 36-26 and what has been modified. The overlap of both legal texts, without a widely disseminated official transition guide, has created concrete questions: Do I still report the same way? Have my obligations as a generator changed? Do I need new permits?

This article answers those questions by comparing the two regulations on the points that most affect companies that generate, import, and manage solid waste, with special attention to post-industrial and post-consumer plastic waste.

What Law 36-26 Established (The Starting Point)

Law 36-26 was the framework regulation governing the comprehensive management of solid waste in the Dominican Republic. Its main pillars were:

• Waste classification by origin and hazardousness, including urban, industrial, and special solid waste.
• Extended producer responsibility (EPR): the obligation of manufacturers and importers of certain products to take responsibility for managing the waste those products generate at the end of their useful life.
• Registration and authorization of waste operators before environmental authorities.
• Prohibitions and restrictions on final disposal in unauthorized locations and on certain handling practices.
• Sanctioning framework with fines and closures for those who failed to comply with the provisions.

In practice, many companies operated under this law, adapting their internal processes for generating, temporarily storing, and delivering waste to authorized managers.

What Law 98-25 Introduced and Why It Matters

Law 98-25 did not completely repeal Law 36-26: it modified and expanded it on specific points. Understanding exactly which points are affected is what prevents compliance errors.

What Changed with Law 98-25

• Expansion of the scope of EPR. Law 98-25 extends extended producer responsibility to new categories of products and materials. This means that companies previously not included in EPR schemes may now be required to participate in collection, recovery, or post-consumer management funding systems.
• Strengthening of economic instruments. Mechanisms such as fees, contributions, or specific funds to finance waste management are incorporated or reinforced, which may translate into new burdens for importers and producers of packaging, containers, and plastic products.
• Greater precision in the management hierarchy. The new law more clearly establishes the order of priority among prevention, reuse, recycling, energy recovery, and final disposal. Recycling and material recovery are formally positioned above simple disposal.
• Update of the institutional framework. Responsibilities are adjusted among municipalities, the Ministry of the Environment, and other entities, which may affect which authority you must approach for permits, reports, or dispute resolution.
• Adaptation deadlines. Law 98-25 establishes specific deadlines for companies to bring their operations into compliance with the new provisions. These deadlines vary depending on the type of company and sector, so it is essential to review which one applies to your specific case.

What Did Not Change

• The obligation to hold authorization to operate as a waste manager remains in force under the same general terms.
• Prohibitions on illegal waste disposal and open-air burning are maintained and in some cases reinforced.
• The basic classification of waste by origin and characteristics remains as a reference, although it may be supplemented by new regulations.
• The polluter-pays principle continues to be the cornerstone of the sanctioning system.

Direct Comparison: Table of Key Points

For quick clarity, here are the most relevant elements compared between both regulations:

• Extended producer responsibility: Law 36-26 established it for limited categories — Law 98-25 expands it to more sectors and products.
• Economic instruments: Law 36-26 mentioned them in general terms — Law 98-25 develops them in greater detail and makes them more operational.
• Management hierarchy: Present in Law 36-26 — reinforced and more explicit in Law 98-25.
• Institutional framework: Law 36-26 distributed responsibilities — Law 98-25 adjusts and updates them.
• Adaptation deadlines: Not explicitly contemplated in Law 36-26 for modifications — Law 98-25 introduces them for the transition.
• Prohibitions and sanctions: Maintained in both; Law 98-25 does not soften any of them.

What Your Company Must Do Now

The first step is not to assume that everything remains the same. These are the concrete actions that any company generating, importing, or managing waste must review at this time:

1. Determine Whether Your Company Falls Within the New Scope of EPR

If you manufacture, import, or distribute products with plastic packaging, containers, or materials that end up as post-consumer waste, check whether Law 98-25 includes you in an EPR scheme that previously did not apply to you. This may involve joining a collective management system or meeting individual recovery targets.

2. Identify Which Authority Is Now Your Point of Contact

With the adjustment of the institutional framework, a procedure you previously carried out with one entity may have migrated or may require additional steps with another. Confirm with your legal advisor or directly with the Ministry of the Environment which is the correct channel for your type of activity.

3. Review Your Contracts with Waste Managers

If you deliver post-industrial plastic waste to an authorized manager, verify that the manager is still operating under a valid authorization in accordance with the new regulations. A manager who has not updated their accreditation exposes you to shared liability.

4. Check the Deadlines That Apply to You

Law 98-25 includes adaptation periods, but they are not the same for everyone. Depending on the type of company, the volume of waste you generate, or the sector in which you operate, deadlines differ. Do not wait until the deadline expires to begin adapting: registration and authorization processes take time.

5. Document Everything

Both Law 36-26 and Law 98-25 uphold the principle of traceability. Generation records, delivery manifests to managers, valorization certificates: all of that documentation is your protection during an inspection or before the tax authority if you apply any tax incentive associated with waste management.

A Common Mistake Worth Avoiding

Many companies assume that if they were already complying with Law 36-26, they are automatically in compliance with Law 98-25. That is not the case. The expansion of EPR obligations, the new deadlines, and the institutional adjustment create compliance gaps that are not obvious without a comparative reading of both texts. The time to review is now, not when a notification arrives.

How This Connects to Plastic Recycling

Law 98-25 reinforces the place of recycling and material recovery in the waste management hierarchy. For companies that generate post-industrial plastic waste — trimmings, offcuts, out-of-specification materials — this means that delivering those materials to a manager who processes them and reincorporates them as raw material is not just a good practice: it is the option that the legal framework expressly prioritizes over final disposal.

At Scrapmen Recycling Group we buy and process post-industrial and post-consumer plastic waste to reincorporate it into the production chain. If your company generates this type of material and you need an authorized manager with whom to properly document the chain of custody, we can support you throughout that process.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Law 98-25 Completely Repeal Law 36-26?

No. Law 98-25 modified and expanded specific aspects of Law 36-26, but did not repeal it in its entirety. Both texts coexist, and the provisions of Law 36-26 that were not expressly modified remain in force. That is why it is important to do a comparative reading and not assume that only one of the two texts applies.

How Do I Know Whether My Company Is Subject to Extended Producer Responsibility?

EPR generally applies to those who manufacture, import, or place on the market products that generate waste at the end of their useful life, such as packaging, containers, and certain plastic products. If your company falls into any of those categories, Law 98-25 may have incorporated you into this scheme even if Law 36-26 did not previously apply to you. A review with a legal advisor specialized in environmental law is the most direct way to determine this.

What Happens If I Deliver My Plastic Waste to an Unauthorized Manager?

Both Law 36-26 and Law 98-25 establish that the generator's responsibility does not disappear simply by delivering waste to a third party. If that third party is not duly authorized, the generator may face sanctions. It is therefore essential to verify the validity of the manager's authorization and to keep the documents that prove the delivery.