Response to Beyond Plastics EPR Lobby Day
ALBANY – The Business Council of New York State, Inc., on Monday, reacted to recent assertions of the “Beyond Plastics” lobbying organization about “extended producer responsibility” legislation for packaging in general, and specific arguments in support of S.1464/A.1749 which is now before the state legislature.
Cost Studies. There have been multiple references to various cost studies.
We stand by the York University study, which, based in part on real-world data from Canadian programs, projects annual direct compliance costs of up to $1.3 billion under S.1464/A.1749, and household cost increases of up to $732 per year.
It has been said that a “Consumer Reports study” projected “zero” cost to consumers from EPR legislation. However, Consumer Reports issued a three-page memo that cites a 2020 study from the state of Oregon, which assessed a very different law from that proposed in S.1464/A.1749, particularly with regard to material bans and source-reduction mandates. But Consumer Reports has not done a cost impact assessment of S.1464/A.1749 – gold standard or otherwise. Note that the Oregon producer responsibility organization’s final implementation plan budgets more than $250 million per year just to cover the PRO’s costs, including municipal reimbursements, but excluding direct compliance costs incurred by packaging and paper producers.
Beyond Plastics has projected $1.3 billion in savings over a ten-year period under S.1464/A.1749. That figure was derived by assuming the bill’s aggressive (and likely unachievable) packaging reduction and recycling mandates are met on time, and then calculating the resulting reduction in material management and disposal fees. But the BP analysis admits that it does not assess any other direct or indirect costs, such as producer fees, municipal reimbursements, or the internal costs borne by producers in meeting the material reduction and reformulation mandates of S.1464/A.1749, let alone the potential indirect costs on the state’s economy.
We have also stressed that, regardless of the level of reimbursements to municipalities for material collection and processing under S.1464/A.1749, that bill has no requirement that any “savings” be passed on to taxpayers, and we strongly expect that such reimbursements will be absorbed into municipal spending plans.
Packaging bans - It has been said that S.1464/A.1749 does not ban categories of packaging, it only bans specific chemicals and materials. This is inaccurate in two ways:
First, the bill (see §27-3431) provides that two years after the promulgation of implementation rules (which are required within 18 months after the bill’s effective date), all packaging material sold in NYS must “have a consistent regional market for purchase, by end users in the production of new products.” If such markets do not exist (and the legislation is very unclear as to what criteria will be used to measure compliance), those categories of packages cannot be legally sold in NYS, e.g., they are banned. The bill contains no waiver of this provision.
Second, the bill (see §27-3425) lists chemical compounds whose intentional use would be prohibited for use in packaging, including non-exempt food and beverage packaging, within three years of rule adoption. In many instances, there are no viable alternatives for these materials in food and beverage packaging, which would in effect be a ban on their use (and the bill provides no waivers from its material bans) If S.1464/A.1749 is enacted, it would result in the removal of essential food and beverage products from store shelves across New York, impacting consumers who rely on them daily.
Advanced Recycling – Opponents of “advanced recycling” argue that it produces fuel, not feedstock for new products. First, we agree that for purposes of EPR legislation, fuel production will not count toward the law’s recycling goals. Second, however, is the fact that plastic and packaging manufacturers are definitely partnering with multinational brand companies and advanced recycling technology providers to produce new plastic packaging made from used plastics.
Current examples include:
- Nalgene bottles
- Wendy’s drink cups
- Herbal Essences shampoo/conditioner bottles
- Warby Parker eyeglass frames
- McDonald’s drink cups
- Mattel playsets
- Ethicon medical device packaging
Advanced recycling is also used in other industries, such as building and construction. For example, GreenMantra Technologies uses advanced recycling to create industrial waxes that are used as performance enhancers in asphalt roofing and roads, and composite lumber.
Advanced Recycling Emissions – Opponents have also claimed that advanced recycling facilities can result in harmful air emissions, and “AR facilities are hiding their emissions and waste data and are not providing transparency.”
First and foremost, any industrial facility operating in New York State will be subject to the Department of Environmental Conservation’s expansive and stringent air emissions regulatory regime. New York’s regulation of air toxics is broader and more restrictive than under the federal Clean Air Act, applying risk-based limits in addition to federal technology-based controls for air toxics. If a facility is a “major source” for air emissions, it would require a state-issued “Title V permit,” whose annual emission reporting requirements are available on the DEC website. Facilities with lower emissions are issued state facility permits, and while their emission reports are not o the DEC website, their detailed permit requirements and limits are.
Second, regardless of state-specific emissions reporting, there is a federal database as well. EPA ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance History Online) database provides a comprehensive summary of the emissions and wastes coming from manufacturing facilities, including an environmental justice profile (demographics, air quality etc).
While we have not done a comprehensive review, we have seen on-line emissions data for out-of-state AR facilities. For example, the Nexus advanced recycling facility in Atlanta has a direct link to their facility report on the EPA ECHO website. which contains all the information on their site regulatory status, environmental impact, air emissions, water / wastewater and hazardous waste generation. A third-party review of Nexus’ emissions report found that, in comparing advanced recycling to emissions from more recognized manufacturing facilities, that a commercial pyrolysis facility processing 120 million pounds of used plastic generates significantly lower VOCs than large food processing facilities, lower CO emissions than automotive assembly plants, and lower NOX emissions that several well-known universities.