Industry groups prepare pushback as new Break Free From Plastic bill is introduced in Congress

Democrats in Congress reintroduced their far-reaching plastics pollution legislation March 25, hoping they can turn gains in the Senate and Joe Biden winning the White House into a vigorous national approach to clean up plastic waste and build up recycling.

But the legislation, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, got strong pushback from the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups, which warned that it could block much-needed investments in chemical recycling.

ACC and several senior executives, including Dow Inc. Chairman and CEO Jim Fitterling, held an unusual online news conference March 23 and directed much of their attention against a provision in the bill that would halt construction of new virgin plastic plants for up to three years.

"It would prevent advanced recycling technologies that can dramatically expand the types and amounts of plastics that can be recycled," said Fitterling, who is also chair of ACC. "Under the Act, these facilities are subject to a pause. We need to accelerate, not pause, progress on these important recycling innovations."

In sometimes sharp comments, industry officials suggested the legislation could disrupt supply chains by restricting the production of plastic, including in medical goods needed to fight COVID-19, and incentivize shifts to other materials with higher carbon footprints.

"This legislation would be absolutely devastating to manufacturing jobs and America's overall economy just as we begin to rebound from the effects of COVID-19," said Tony Radoszewski, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association.

His group said it would put $7 billion in investment in the plastics resin industry in "serious jeopardy."

But supporters of the huge bill, which includes many provisions besides the pause in permits, said that with less than 10 percent of plastics recycled in the United States and growing pollution from the build-out of the plastics production, a stronger government response is needed.

One of the bill's chief authors, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-Calif., said at a March 24 news conference that it was "silly" to argue the bill will stifle innovation, saying it would create incentives for a more circular use of plastics. He said the bill does not ban chemical recycling.

"If they can demonstrate that they're effective, and they do not pollute, we're all for them," he said. "In the bill, we do not ban some of the things they are saying, like chemical recycling."

The bill does call for a pause of up to three years on permits for new plants, including those that "convert plastic into chemical feedstocks for new products or fuel."

Lowenthal and others say the pause is needed to let the Environmental Protection Agency and government scientists examine the cumulative environmental and health impacts of the sizable growth of plastics manufacturing in the U.S. and write new emissions rules.

"We do not want these chemical approaches ... to poison the environment or the populations that live near these facilities," Lowenthal said. "It's going to give us time for EPA to come to grips with what are the impacts of these plastic production facilities."

While industry officials said they see chemical recycling as a key part of solving plastic waste problems, environmental groups on the March 24 press call said it's an unproven technology.

They also argued distinctions should be made between using it to recycle waste plastic back into new plastic, and using it to create fuels, saying the latter should not be called recycling because it does not displace virgin plastic production.

The pause on new plastic plant construction is only one part of a large bill.

The Break Free act includes many of the same provisions from the version first introduced in February 2020, and supporters call it the most comprehensive plastics bill in Congress.

It would, for example, ban plastic bags and expanded polystyrene food containers nationally, as well as set up a national bottle bill and require producers of all packaging materials to fund cleanup and recycling, known as extended producer responsibility.

The EPR provisions would apply to all packaging materials, not just plastics.

The bill would also set minimum recycled content standards for plastic bottles, require the EPA to create national recycling standards and it would limit exports of scrap plastics to developing countries.

Last year, the legislation did not get out of committee or get a vote in Congress.

But both Lowenthal and the other chief sponsor, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said they think it generated a lot of discussion, and said they see political gains by Democrats, gaining the Senate and White House, as helping their cause.

Lowenthal noted that large parts of the Break Free act were incorporated into the House Democrats' main climate legislation, the Clean Future Act, that was released in early March.

"It's going to be part of major legislation coming out of the House this time, that is for sure," Lowenthal said. "It may not come in the exact format it's in now, we're not sure how it will get done, but this bill, its time has come. There's tremendous movement."

He and Merkley also pointed to President Biden prioritizing climate legislation and environmental justice as creating a more favorable path.

An ACC executive, however, said the bill lacks bipartisan support and contrasted it the Save Our Seas legislation, a series of more limited laws that passed Congress in a broad bipartisan fashion.

"Any issue that has dealt with plastic waste in the environment has been collaborative and bipartisan," said Joshua Baca, vice president of plastics for ACC. "Nothing is going to happen without a collaborative process that brings a variety of stakeholders together."

Some of the provisions in the Break Free act, like its call for extended producer responsibility systems for packaging and recycled content requirements, have gotten general support from the plastics and packaging industries. Those groups have shifted their public positions in the last year.

ACC, for example, released a broad framework in November that supports fees on packaging to fund recycling, a form of EPR, and endorses recycled content. And the Flexible Packaging Association said in December it was preparing model EPR legislation, working with NGOs and state governments.

The Break Free bill's EPR language would put the same requirements on all packaging types, including plastic, paper, metals and glass. But its fee structure would vary based on factors like how recyclable a packaging is and how much recycled content it has.

Plastics industry officials said they worry the bill would create incentives to switch to other materials, but supporters of the bill say it would create incentives to make the use of plastics more circular by increasing recycling rates and recycled content. The EPA says less than 14 percent of plastic packaging in the U.S. gets recycled.

Merkley said he and other sponsors of the bill want to see companies bear more of the financial cost for recycling their products.

"We want to make sure that corporations take some responsibility for the impacts of their products," he said. "And that means requiring them to fund and facilitate a robust recycling and clean up effort for those products."