Industry leaders see bigger federal role in EPR policy

Washington — With four states now implementing the U.S.'s first extended producer responsibility laws for packaging, a Senate panel on March 6 heard calls from the industry to have Washington take on a larger role.

The head of consumer goods maker S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., and leaders of the packaging trade group Ameripen, for example, both told a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing that they wanted to see more EPR programs in the U.S. to help fund better infrastructure to recycle plastics and other packaging.

Fisk Johnson, the chairman and CEO of S.C. Johnson, said his company supports federal laws or standards for EPR for packaging.

Voluntary action by companies, such as using recycled content or promoting reusable packaging, only goes so far without broader, systemic changes, he told the hearing, titled "Examining Extended Producer Responsibility Policies for Consumer Packaging."

"For all our company's work and ambition on plastic, I can't say I can raise my hand and say I feel good about the progress we've made," Johnson told the panel. "The only way to have an effective program is through a government and regulatory framework. We believe federal EPR is the way to go.

"I have long seen our company's plastic and packaging waste as one of our top environmental issues," he said.

As well, the head of the packaging industry trade group Ameripen told the senators it supports "well-designed" EPR programs and would welcome discussions with policymakers in Washington to "explore the potential need and design for any federal framework or program."

Ameripen Executive Director Dan Felton said federal efforts could help work out differences emerging between the four states that have passed EPR laws: California, Colorado, Maine and Oregon.

"There is unfortunately a lack of consistency between these emerging laws … causing concern for many, including brand owners who will be primarily responsible for funding those programs," he said.

"A deeper discussion is now merited on how uniformity may be achieved if packaging EPR continues to expand in the U.S. and whether something could or should be done at the federal level.

"While Ameripen is not currently suggesting there is an immediate need for a federal program or framework, any consideration must balance multiple public policy priorities and stakeholder needs to effectively improve packaging recycling and recovery throughout the U.S.," Felton said.

In his testimony, Johnson pointed to differences in recyclability labeling between the states as an example of how a lack of uniformity causes problems for companies.

"The labeling laws as part of EPR in California will prevent the chasing arrows symbol in most cases, whereas 30 other states have laws that mandate the chasing arrows," Johnson said.

"Our products flow freely across state borders, so it can be impossible for us to comply with the law when you have that kind of labeling conflict."

Only four senators attended the hearing, but their comments at times dived deep into plastics and EPR policy.

"You have one crowd saying we need to end all plastic production tomorrow," said Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. "That position just doesn't make sense. Acknowledging our continued reliance on plastic and working to prevent plastic pollution are not mutually exclusive."

In her opening statement, she said she wanted to make sure that EPR laws are "grounded in reality" and do not pass on "regressive costs" to consumers, "especially in rural areas where current recycling programs are more limited and the cost of standing up [new] ones are more expensive."

Capito, the top-ranking Republican on the committee, noted the ongoing plastics treaty talks and raised concerns about potential negative impacts from both international standards and from 50 states developing their own packaging rules.

"Companies cannot operate efficiently if they must conform to international standards that do not have American interests in mind, or if they have to conform with 50 different packaging and disposal requirements to sell their products if every state had their own provisions," Capito said.

Capito said she was concerned that bigger states could use EPR to dictate market conditions to rural states like hers, as they have in other environmental policy areas.

California Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla, however, said Congress should let states experiment with EPR and not restrict those that want to go further.

"We in Congress can learn what's worked at the state level and try to apply that across the country, while not preempting those states that can and want to be more aggressive," Padilla said.

Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said EPR laws in other countries have dramatically increased recycling rates, pointing to the Canadian province of British Columbia, which raised its residential recycling rate from 37 percent in 2004, when it started EPR, to 86 percent in 2022.

In a statement, he pointed to low plastics recycling rates in the U.S., and said EPR programs could charge higher fees to materials that are harder to recycle, like plastic films.

"Sadly, as you know, plastics are not commonly recycled in America," he said.

Capito echoed an industry point in asking witnesses on the panel if it is "even feasible to comply with anticipated recycled-content mandates without the integration of some chemical recycling?"

Felton said Ameripen does not have an official position on chemical recycling, but he said the association would generally not want to see technologies restricted, whether it is chemical recycling or traditional mechanical recycling.

"We will say [chemical recycling] is a tool in the toolbox," he said. "We would not want any program in the state or the federal level to move forward that would take a tool that is enabled to increase packaging recycling and recovery."

Similarly, Johnson said it should be an option, especially as EPR systems are developing.

"I would support the fact that it's an important tool in the toolbox, especially for hard-to-recycle plastics," Johnson said. "You would hope, over time, that as EPR works you get out of those hard-to-recycle plastics … but it certainly is an important tool, in my opinion, in an interim period."