Miniature liquor bottles known as "nips" remain a big headache in some communities.

Last year, Chelsea became the first community in the state to prohibit the sale of the single-serving bottles, and although the ban is being appealed by the liquor industry, other communities are also considering bans.

In January, Worcester District 4 City Councilor Sarai Rivera asked about the possibility of the city administration placing a ban on nips. Ms. Rivera’s request remains under review, according to a spokesman for the city manager.

Reached last week, Ms. Rivera said littered nip bottles remain a pet peeve of hers. She said she usually sees them strewn around liquor stores. Recently she said she saw a bunch of them thrown about in a parking lot. This got her thinking more about the issue.

Ms. Rivera indicated she might amend her request to the city, asking it to consider placing a redemption deposit on nips. This would entice people to pick them up rather than leave them scattered on city streets.

Aware that some in the package-store industry are against a ban, Ms. Rivera said a deposit might be more palatable to them.

“Honestly, I’m just sick and tired of the litter of the nip bottles,” Ms. Rivera said. "Part of the reason we don’t see beer cans everywhere is because they have a deposit.”

There are at least four related legislative bills under consideration on Beacon Hill. Two of them deal with a refund deposit, while the other two aim to improve the recycling of nip bottles and other containers.

The management of Kirsch Liquors in Worcester said it would be against a ban on nips.

“It’s a significant portion of business,” store manager Ryan Sens said, “and to take it away because they feel that there’s a litter issue … there are simple solutions to a litter issue. Put trash cans around the city. You could put redemption on nips. It’s not the only litter that’s around the city.”

He added that eliminating nips would be more damaging to Kirsch Liquors than to a larger retailer that doesn’t rely on nip sales.

The issue has also garnered attention this year in Southbridge.

In January, the Southbridge Liquor Licensing Board sent letters to retail establishments stating the board had been discussing the sale of nips, and a ban was being considered, according to meeting minutes.

But during its meeting on April 4, Southbridge officials opted to bring in representatives from package stores for a discussion on the matter. Rather than impose a ban, the board and package-store representatives agreed that the owners could voluntarily put up signs that promote proper disposal of alcohol containers. The town provided the signs.

It's likely that a ban of nips by Worcester, Southbridge or any other community would draw an appeal from the package-store industry, as it has in the Chelsea case.

On the heels of Chelsea's ban of 50- and 100-milliliter nip bottles, as a means to curb public drunkenness in its downtown, as well as litter, nine liquor stores there appealed the decision to the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. The Massachusetts Package Stores Association in Westboro is helping with the appeal.

Robert Mellion, executive director of the association, said the association views a blanket ban on nips as unconstitutional in Massachusetts because it denies due process to the stores on selling a product that’s legally allowed in commerce throughout the state and nation.

A ban should only be allowed on a case-by-case basis when a local licensing authority is considering a transfer or change to a package store license, he said.

Because retailers rely on the sale of nips to varying degrees, as the management of Kirsch Liquors in Worcester pointed out, the industry in Massachusetts is split on the issue of a ban, according to Mr. Mellion.

For some businesses, nips are not a high percentage of their sales, but then there are many where it’s up to 6 to 10% of sales, Mr. Mellion said. “It really depends on the community. We’ve observed industrial or gateway cities are places where you probably see a higher concentration of sales of nips.”

Mr. Mellion contends that bans won’t work because the consumer can simply go to the next town to get them.

“Nips didn’t stop flowing into Chelsea once they did a self-imposed ban on nips,” he said.

The association leader also suggested it’s unfair to target nips when there's a widespread litter problem in Massachusetts.

“We’re not the cleanest state in the country,” he suggested. “I’d say that there are nips all over the place. But then there are also Dunkin' Donuts containers, and paper all over the place, and Styrofoam containers from restaurants. It’s everywhere.”

The association, he said, is working with companies such as Sazerac, the maker of Fireball nips, and wholesalers to express that they need to come together to help with community cleanup programs and help fund beautification programs across the state to pick up trash.

“The litter problem in the state is not a nips problem - it’s a litter problem,” he said.

Mr. Mellion said deposit bills are not bad ideas and the association isn't against them.

But the problem, he said, is they need to consider the absence of any machines in the state that accept nip bottles.

"Nobody collects nip bottles to grind or do anything with them," Mr. Mellion said.

The association director said that he's made calls on an almost daily basis to the state Department of Environmental Protection reporting that TOMRA, the company that has reverse vending machines for collecting drink containers for recycling, and Anheuser-Busch aren't regularly picking up recyclables that are already at package stores. The current system isn't working, he said, because there's no money in it.

"If we're going to do a nips deposit, we need to make sure that the fee and handling fee are cost effective to make it work," he said.