EPR, a big change for US, gains interest in Congress

Extended producer responsibility — basically fees paid by manufacturers to help fund recycling — would be a big change in policy for the United States. But some members of Congress are taking a look at it and some companies are backing the move.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the powerful Appropriations Committee, called at a March 18 hearing for Congress to advance stronger plastics policies and asked witnesses what they thought of EPR.

As well, Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., said he was "fascinated" by EPR for packaging and compared it to another federal program, a fee that mine owners pay to the Abandoned Mine Lands Trust Fund to finance cleanups.

"It's the same idea, and I like it, and I want to talk more about [EPR]," Cartwright said.

The lawmakers spoke at an appropriations subcommittee hearing on plastics, where Cartwright quizzed witnesses on a fee Norway puts on plastic bottles and on plans in the United Kingdom to tax manufacturers of packaging if the recycling rate falls below 30 percent.

The questions don't mean that any kind of EPR fee is imminent. The only packaging EPR introduced in Congress last year, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, stalled out.

And national EPR would be a big policy switch in an area traditionally left to states. The subcommittee's top-ranking Republican, Ohio Rep. David Joyce, expressed concern about "heavy-handed federal mandates" and product bans hindering innovation.

But having an EPR dialogue in a congressional hearing shows that lawmakers are grappling in more detail with funding better recycling programs. The main Democratic climate bill in the House, introduced this month, calls for a task force to study creating EPR in the U.S.

The hearing was called by Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, in her first meeting as chair of the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department. Pingree has been active on plastics issues and said she wanted her first subcommittee hearing to focus on plastics.

Democrats are expected to introduce a new version of the Break Free Act soon, and EPR had the support from one consumer products company testifying at Pingree's hearing, Nestle USA.

Nicole Collier, senior director of corporate affairs for Nestle USA, said the company and others in the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance support a federal EPR system.

"An effective EPR system would place a fee on packaging, and the revenue from the collected fee would go toward funding stronger infrastructure," she said. "Nestle and other SFPA member companies participate in EPR programs globally."

As well, she said, Nestle supports eco-modulation fees like Cartwright noted in Norway. Norway's plan puts a tax on plastic bottles but then reduces that tax as recycling rates rise.

"We are supportive of that type of system," she said. "We would like to see any U.S. system incorporate the investments that companies have made in their packaging."

Some industry groups, like the American Chemistry Council and the Recycling Partnership, have offered general support for EPR. ACC has signed on to material-neutral EPR fees for some disposable packaging in Colorado, although other groups, including the Plastics Industry Association and the Association of Plastic Recyclers, oppose that Colorado plan.

Collier told the congressional panel that Nestle is making efforts to get rid of hard-to-recycle packaging, including multilayer flexible plastics.

She noted Nestle has a goal of reducing its use of virgin plastics by one-third by 2025 and announced a plan last year to invest $2 billion to shift from virgin to recycled plastics.

But she said protecting food and meeting government requirements for food packaging make finding new materials tricky.

"There are some items today where we don't have alternative materials that would be appropriate," Collier said. "While we do know that plastic remains a big problem, we do still use it, we do see that it has value and we are trying to make it as recyclable as possible."

The hearing had some members of Congress offering up focused comments around plastics in their five-minute question periods.

DeLauro, for example, said municipal recycling programs in her district were hit hard by China's 2018 ban on imports of low-value plastics and other scrap.

She said Stamford, Conn., used to turn a profit of $95,000 a year selling its recyclables but after China's switch, now has to spend $700,000 annually disposing of them.

"China's new standards have effectively eliminated a major foreign market for our plastic waste," she said.

DeLauro suggested any new infrastructure legislation in Washington should include recycling, and she said the federal government should advance policies that "tackle plastic pollution throughout the supply chain."

"We must become more aggressive in reducing the amount of disposable packaging [and] single-use plastics [and] substitute more sustainable materials for single-use plastics that are difficult to recycle," she said. "Congress and the private sector must partner with local governments to enhance recycling."

A witness from the city of Phoenix told the committee it had to adjust its plastics recycling in the wake of China's ban.

After the ban, according to Ginger Spencer, the director of public works, many plastics numbered 3-7 in the resin identification code no longer had markets. But she said Phoenix did see some opportunities with polypropylene and recalibrated its materials recovery facility to capture more of that plastic, which is No. 5 in the resin code.

It also launched a project in 2019 with Renewlogy to turn some of its collected plastics into fuels, with limited success so far.

Spencer told the hearing that project had to be put on hold because of market conditions but the city and its partners are now looking to restart it, with a smaller demonstration project.

"We had to put our plastics-to-fuel project on hold because of the uncertainty in the market," Spencer said. "I'm glad to announce that we've restarted those conversations with Renewlogy and their investors."

The hearing also touched on concerns members of Congress had around microplastics contamination and whether the federal government's purchasing efforts could jump-start new packaging delivery systems.

Cartwright, for example, noted recent studies showing microplastics contamination in rivers in his Pennsylvania district, and he linked it to a large landfill in the district that collects fees by taking garbage from New York, New Jersey and other states.

"My district is burdened with more than its fair share of waste from external sources," he said. "You don't need to be near the ocean to have your life intimately affected by unnecessary waste and plastics."

As well, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, raised concerns about microplastics pollution in the Great Lakes and its potential impact on drinking water and fisheries, and DeLauro noted concerns about microplastics getting into the food chain.

"It is in our shellfish, it is in our salt, it is raining from our skies," DeLauro said. "If we do not take meaningful action to stop it, not only will plastics be found in everything, it will be found in everyone."

Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nevada, said she wanted the federal government to move away from single-use plastics in its contracting.

Winnie Lau, senior manager for preventing ocean plastics at the Pew Charitable Trusts, told Lee that could send a strong signal to develop new package delivery systems.

"The government could put in place policies that put preferences away from single-use plastics to reusable systems," she said. "That could be a very powerful tool."

She noted a Pew study from last year that found that absent much more dramatic action, plastic waste generation globally would double and the amount of plastic in the ocean would quadruple by 2040.