americanchemistry.com
®
700 Second St., NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 249.7000
September 6, 2022
Electronic Submission
Honorable Robin Carnahan
Administrator
U.S. General Services Administration
1899 F Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20405
In re: Case 2022-G517: Public Comments: Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking: Single-Use Plastics and Packaging (87 FR 40476)
Dear Administrator Carnahan,
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) appreciates the opportunity to submit the attached
comments to the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking: Single-Use Plastics and Packaging.
ACC and our members are deeply committed to creating a more circular economy for
plastics and ending used plastic in the environment. That is why ACC and our Plastics
Division members were among the first to establish ambitious, forward-thinking goals that
all plastic packaging in the United States is reused, recycled, or recovered by 2040 and that
all U.S. plastic packaging is recyclable or recoverable by 2030.
1
Achieving these goals will require industry, manufacturers, brands and retailers, recyclers,
and waste haulers, as well as citizens, communities, non-profits, academics, and federal,
state, and local governments, to come together to support policies and programs to increase
the supply of and demand for recycled materials and create the circular economy we all
want.
We believe that a rule based on this ANPR would:
• Lead to the unintended consequence of increasing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions contrary to the president’s climate goals;
• Increase public costs; and
• Increase the amount of materials landfilled.
1
“U.S. Plastics Resin Producers Set Circular Economy Goals to Recycle or Recover 100% of Plastic
Packaging by 2040,” Media release (American Chemistry Council, May 9, 2018),
https://www.americanchemistry.com/chemistry-in-america/news-trends/press-release/2018/us-
plastics-resin-producers-set-circular-economy-goals-to-recycle-or-recover-100-of-plastic-packaging-by-
2040.
americanchemistry.com
®
700 Second St., NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 249.7000
A better solution would be for the GSA to (1) create a purchasing preference for items with
recycled plastics as well as (2) base procurement decisions on lifecycle assessments (LCA) to
help ensure science-based climate decisions. Additionally, Congress should (1) require a 30
by ’30 national recycled plastics standard, (2) create a modern regulatory system to develop
a circular economy for plastics, (3) develop national recycling standards for plastics, (4)
study the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from all material to guide informed policy,
and (5) support an American-designed producer responsibility system.
2
While we would not support a proposed rule reflecting the direction of the ANPR,
3
we offer
these comments in support of the larger goals of reducing climate impact and waste and
increasing recycled content and the circular economy.
4
ACC would welcome the opportunity to meet with the GSA to discuss our comments in
greater detail. In the interim, please feel free to contact me at +1 (202) 249-6600 or
Joshua_Baca@AmericanChemistry.com or Adam S. Peer, Senior Director, Plastic Packaging
& Consumer Products at +1 (202) 249-6614 or Adam_Peer@AmericanChemistry.com.
Sincerely,
Joshua Baca
Vice President, Plastics Division
American Chemistry Council
Attachments
2
Plastic Division, “5 Actions for Sustainable Change,” Industry report (Washington, D.C.: American
Chemistry Council, 2021),
https://www.plasticmakers.org/files/d6b3a34b9a88b1a6ee4da0a73b24562d740f80e4.pdf.
3
ACC reserves the right to raise additional concerns.
4
Specific responses may be found in Table 1 on page 18. In some cases, ACC does not respond
directly because the ANPR is based on an incorrect assumption.
3
Public Comments: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
Single-Use Plastics and Packaging
(Case 2022-G517, 87 FR 40476)
Introduction
The American Chemistry Council's (ACC)
5
Plastics Division
6
is pleased to submit these
public comments to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Acquisition
Policy’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (87 F.R. 40476) relating to:
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) relating to: Single Use
Plastics and Packaging (Case 2022-G517).
ACC and our members are deeply committed to creating a more circular economy for
plastics and ending used plastic in the environment. That is why ACC and its Plastics
Division members were among the first to establish ambitious, forward-thinking goals that
all plastic packaging in the United States is reused, recycled, or recovered by 2040 and that
all U.S. plastic packaging is recyclable or recoverable by 2030.
7
Achieving these goals will
require industry, manufacturers, brands and retailers, recyclers, and waste haulers, as well
as citizens, communities, non-profits, academics, and federal, state and local governments
to come together to support policies and programs to increase the supply of and demand for
recycled materials and create the circular economy we all want.
We believe that a rule based on this ANPR would:
• Lead to the unintended consequence of increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
contrary to the president’s climate goals;
• Increase public costs; and
• Increase the amount of materials landfilled.
A better solution would be for the GSA to (1) create a purchasing preference for items with
recycled plastics as well as (2) base procurement decisions on lifecycle assessments (LCA) to
help ensure science-based climate decisions. This is illustrated in Figure 1 on page 23.
Additionally, Congress should (1) require a 30 by ’30 national recycled plastics standard, (2)
create a modern regulatory system to develop a circular economy for plastics, (3) develop
national recycling standards for plastics, (4) study the impact of greenhouse gas emissions
5
ACC represents a diverse set of companies engaged in the U.S. business of chemistry, a $768 billion
enterprise that is helping to solve the biggest challenges facing our country and the world.
Chemistry touches 96 percent of all manufactured goods, and the use of plastics in modern
automotive, building and construction, and food packaging industries is helping to create a more
sustainable society
6
The Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents leading manufacturers
of plastics, as well as other companies throughout the entire plastics value chain, and focuses
on advocacy initiatives that promote sustainability and contribute to a more circular economy for
plastics.
7
“U.S. Plastics Resin Producers Set Circular Economy Goals to Recycle or Recover 100% of Plastic
Packaging by 2040.”
4
from all material to guide informed policy, and (5) support an American-designed producer
responsibility system.
8
While we would not support a proposed rule in the direction of the ANPR,
9
we offer these
comments in support of the larger goals of reducing climate impact and waste and
increasing recycled content and the circular economy.
10
We look forward to working constructively with the GSA and other stakeholders on a
proposed rule that would achieve a more circular economy for plastics in the United States.
Environmental Impacts
Increased Climate Effect
The ANPR seems to mistakenly assume that alternatives to plastics are always
environmentally preferable to non-plastic materials in the single-use and packaging
context. Although plastic has a carbon footprint, it is mistaken to assume that alternative
materials would always be more effective.
11
It is important to consider the carbon benefits
of using plastics.
12
As illustrated in Figure 1 and discussed further on, we are concerned by
any blanket approach that merely substitutes plastics with alternatives, without taking
into account the overall environmental footprint and total lifecycle impact of the alternative
materials. Taking this approach in the absence of scienced-based analysis will in turn lead
to increased greenhouse gas emissions and increased landfill.
Rather than making blanket assumptions that could have unintended consequences, GSA’s
proposed rule should be guided by LCAs. One of the most powerful impacts of the proposed
rule will be its overall impact on the environment, from a lifecycle perspective.
An LCA is a valuable tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of packaging
alternatives over their lifecycle, from the extraction of raw materials to the disposal or
recycling of an item.
13
When we consider the environmental impacts of packaging
throughout its entire lifecycle (mining, manufacturing, transportation, use, and end-of-life),
LCAs are essential to compare the environmental performance of alternative materials for
different applications.
14
The President directed that science- and evidence-based tools, such as LCAs, should guide
climate-related decisions. The President has stated in his executive order "Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad" that the government should listen to science and take
8
Plastic Division, “5 Actions for Sustainable Change.”
9
ACC reserves the right to raise additional concerns. See, Table 1 on page 18.
10
Specific responses may be found in Table 1 on page 18. In some cases, ACC does not respond
directly because the ANPR is based on an incorrect assumption.
11
N. Voulvoulis et al., “Examining Material Evidence: The Carbon Footprint” (Imperial College
London, 2020), https://www.americanchemistry.com/better-policy-
regulation/plastics/resources/examining-material-evidence-the-carbon-fingerprint.
12
Voulvoulis et al.
13
Olivier Jolliet et al., Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (CRC Press, 2015),
https://doi.org/10.1201/b19138.
14
Jolliet et al.
5
action to address the effects of climate change.
15
Additionally, the President directed that
agencies must capture the full costs of GHG emissions under the executive order
"Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the
Climate Crisis."
16
Calculations of this nature must be as accurate as possible and consider
global damage as well. The President recognized that this facilitates sound decision-
making, acknowledges the breadth of climate impacts, and supports the international
leadership of the United States. ACC supports this approach.
In a recent study, plastic lowered total GHG contribution in 13 of 14 cases compared to
alternatives in cases where it was used at scale.
17
&
18
The study demonstrated that in
terms of both product lifecycle and use impact, GHG savings range from 10 to 90 percent.
Many applications, particularly in food packaging, do not have a viable alternative in terms
of performance. Moreover, plastics adoption in additional areas could contribute to
decarbonization by reducing food spoilage and energy use, resulting in even lower GHG
emissions.
In an analysis of 20 common food categories, including fresh and frozen meat, more than 90
percent of the products use plastic packaging.
19
Over 50 percent of products in another
eight categories are packaged with plastic.
20
Plastics have a significant impact on
greenhouse gas emission avoidance.
21
For example:
22
• As a result of their lightweight properties and low energy requirements, PET bottles
produce the lowest emissions compared to alternatives.
• The GHG emissions from metal cans are three times higher than those from
multilayer plastic pouches.
• Use of plastic packaging for meat preservation reduces GHG emissions by 35
percent compared to butcher paper.
• The GHG emissions from reusable plastic bottles of hand soap are 15 percent lower
than those from reusable glass bottles.
According to another report, on a global scale, other packaging types (fiber, glass, steel, and
aluminum) emit more greenhouse gases than plastic bottles when considering the
production and manufacturing of the main alternatives to plastic for a 500ml bottle.
23
Glass
bottles were found to emit the most greenhouse gases among materials studied.
Additionally, the report suggests that replacing all plastic bottles with glass globally would
15
“Exec. Order No. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” 86 F.R. § 19 (2021),
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0012.
16
“Exec. Order No. 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To
Tackle the Climate Crisis,” 86 F.R. § 14 (2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-01765.
17
David Feber et al., “Climate Impact of Plastics,” Industry report (McKinsey & Company, July
2022), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/chemicals/our-insights/Climate-impact-of-plastics.
18
Note, the study included some durable applications.
19
Feber et al., “Climate Impact of Plastics.”
20
Feber et al.
21
Feber et al.
22
Feber et al.
23
Voulvoulis et al., “Examining Material Evidence: The Carbon Footprint.”
6
result in 22 large coal-fired power plants' worth of additional carbon emissions.
24
That
amount of electricity is consumed by one third of the United Kingdom.
25
It is easy to
overlook plastic's positive impact because of its ubiquitous nature, and critical to ensure
that GSA fully consider the impact in its proposed rule to help federal agencies reduce
Scope 2 and 3 emissions as required by executive order.
26
The use of plastic also reduces
food spoilage and landfill waste, both priorities of the administration.
Increase Landfill of materials
Plastics have largely replaced glass, paper, and cardboard materials for containers and
packaging due to performance efficiencies.
27
Compared to glass, metal, paper and cardboard
containers and packaging, plastic containers and packaging tend to use significantly less
material.
28
On average, over four times more alternative material is needed to perform the
same function.
29
This means that if plastic containers and packaging are replaced by
common material alternatives, it will likely lead to increased landfilling of materials.
A recent Canadian regulatory impact assessment (RIA) demonstrates this. The RIA applied
to a regulation banning certain plastic items. According to the RIA, the proposed regulation
is expected to increase waste generated by substitutes by 298,054 tons in the first year and
by 3.2 million tons from 2023 to 2032.
30
During that same time, the regulation would
prevent approximately 1.6 million tons of used plastics but would add 3.2 million tons of
other materials to the waste stream.
31
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plastics accounted for 12.2 percent
of waste in 2018.
32
During the past eight years, plastic durable goods, containers, and
packaging have varied between 12.2 percent and 13.2 percent.
33
In 2018, 146.1 million tons
of waste were landfilled in the United States. Food accounted for 24 percent of waste
landfilled.
34
24
Voulvoulis et al.
25
Voulvoulis et al.
26
“Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability,” 86 F.R. § 236 (2021), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-12-13/pdf/2021-
27114.pdf.
27
Demetra A. Tsiamis, Melissa Torres, and Marco J. Castaldi, “Role of Plastics in Decoupling Municipal Solid
Waste and Economic Growth in the U.S.,” Waste Management 77 (July 2018): 147–55,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.003.
28
Tsiamis, Torres, and Castaldi.
29
Richard Lord, “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities
for Continuous Improvement” (American Chemistry Council, July 2016),
https://www.plasticpackagingfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ACC-report-July-2016.pdf.
30
Kenneth P Green, “Canada’s Wasteful Plan to Regulate Plastic Waste,” 2022,
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-wasteful-plan-to-regulate-plastic-
waste.pdf.
31
Green.
32
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials,
Wastes and Recycling,” October 2, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-
waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials.
33
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
34
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
7
Should GSA move forward with a proposed rule that is designed to categorically minimize
all “single use” plastic packaging, landfilling is likely to increase rather than decrease due
to landfilling of alternatives and an increase in food waste discussed further below. Federal
agencies are unlikely to achieve the President's goal
35
of reducing waste and diverting at
least 50 percent of non-hazardous solid waste from landfills should GSA move forward
consistent with the direction of the ANPR. The ANPR would also make the President’s goal
of reducing food waste more difficult to achieve.
36
Increase Food Waste
Nearly a third of all food produced worldwide for human consumption never reaches people,
according to the United Nations.
37
This not only represents a missed opportunity to
increase food security, but also wastes the natural resources needed to grow, process,
package, and transport food. Food waste makes up 24 percent of landfilled material.
38
This
results in enormous amounts of methane. The global warming potential of methane is 84 to
86 times greater than that of carbon.
39
As a country, food waste would rank third in GHG
emissions.
40
We support the President’s efforts
41
to reduce food waste as well as highlight
the social cost of methane.
42
Modern food systems rely on plastic to protect and preserve food during transport from
farm through to the consumer. Food spoilage would be much higher without plastics. Food
spoilage is greatly reduced by the widespread availability of modified atmosphere
packaging (MAP).
43
In MAP packaging, a perishable product is packed in an atmosphere
containing different elements from air, which slow the spoilage process.
44
For example, plastic packaging has been shown to increase the shelf life of:
• Cucumbers from 3 to 14 days
45
35
Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability.
36
Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability.
37
Food & Agriculture Organization, “Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change,” Fact sheet
(United Nations, November 2015), https://www.fao.org/3/bb144e/bb144e.pdf.
38
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials,
Wastes and Recycling.”
39
International Society of Professional Sustainability Professionals, ISSP-SA Study Guide, 1st Ed.
(Portland, OR, 2016).
40
Food & Agriculture Organization, “Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change.”
41
Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability.
42
Exec. Order No. 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To
Tackle the Climate Crisis.
43
Michael Mullan, “Science and Technology of Modified Atmosphere Packaging,” Dairy Science,
January 2011, https://www.dairyscience.info/index.php/packaging/117-modified-atmosphere-
packaging.html.
44
Mullan.
45
Advisory Committee on Packaging, “Packaging in Perspective,” Industry report (Packaging
Federation, October 2008), https://www.thefactsabout.co.uk/file.php?fileid=28.
8
• Lettuce from 2 – 4 to 14 days
46
• Fresh red meat from 2 – 3 to 21 days
47
• Fresh pasta from 3 to 60 days
48
• Cheese from 7 to 180 days.
49
The benefits of plastic packaging include ease of opening and resealing, which extends food
shelf life and gives convenience to people.
50
While MAP has been used for food storage for
more than a century, advances in polymer science have made it possible to apply this
knowledge to modern food technology with the introduction of plastic films that are suitable
for food storage.
51
ACC believes that a proposed rule that focuses solely on diversion of
”single use” plastics packaging will also increase public costs in addition to its negative
environmental impacts.
Evidence-based public policy should guide GSA decision making. Resources, manufacturing,
and transportation are required for the creation, use, recycling, or disposal of any item. An
item's total environmental impact, as well as societal and economic factors, should be
considered by decision makers. The same should be done for plastic alternatives and the
externalities caused by alternatives.
Increased Public Costs
Along with environmental costs, the ANPR implies an approach that, if adopted in the
proposed rule, would have a negative fiscal impact. Generally, plastic alternatives are more
expensive than plastic to purchase and transport due to increased weight. It is unclear how
this increase in cost will be budgeted. Additionally, the proposed rule could adversely affect
small businesses doing business with the federal government. It is difficult to properly
estimate the impact of such a proposed rule without further information about what GSA
envisions, but Virginia's attempt to eliminate single use plastic procurement offers insight.
The prior governor issued an executive order that would have prohibited state government
agencies and universities from using “single-use” plastic products in part to "reduce [the]
amount of solid waste going to landfills."
52
A limited analysis of state expenditures for the Virginia executive order concluded it would
have nearly doubled the costs of foodservice products for state agencies.
53
In that analysis,
46
Todd Bukowski and Michael Richmond, “A Holistic View of the Role of Flexible Packaging in a
Sustainable World,” Industry report (Flexible Packaging Association, April 9, 2018),
https://perfectpackaging.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FPA-Holistic-View-of-Sustainable-
Packaging.pdf.
47
Bukowski and Richmond.
48
Bukowski and Richmond.
49
Bukowski and Richmond.
50
Bukowski and Richmond.
51
B. Ooraikul and M. E. Stiles, eds., Modified Atmosphere Packaging Of Food (Boston, MA: Springer
US, 1995), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2117-4.
52
“Exec. Order No. 77,” Vol. 37, Iss. 17 Va. Reg. Regs. § (2021),
http://register.dls.virginia.gov/vol37/iss17/v37i17.pdf.
53
MB Public Affairs, Inc., “Initial Comments on Virginia Executive Order Number 77 (2021),” April
4, 2021.
9
it found in Virginia that about half of the food services were provided by the Virginia
Department of Education for school lunches, breakfasts, summer meals, and other nutrition
programs. Additionally, costs would have increased for food services provided by the
criminal justice system, higher education, mental health, senior services, vocational
rehabilitation, and services for the visually impaired. That analysis also found that the
Virginia nutrition expenditures were $13.4 million in expanded polystyrene foam and rigid
plastics disposable foodservice purchases, which would have increased 75 to 118 percent
under the Virginia ban, or $10.1 million to $15.8 million. Clamshells, beverage and portion
cups, lids, containers, dinnerware (plates and bowls), food trays, and serving trays and
carriers were included in these estimates. Estimates do not include straws, utensils, or
trays for meat, poultry, fish, or eggs or other items that the ANPR could affect.
Vendors of food to Virginia would have faced higher food service costs. According to the
same analysis, vendors and concessioners serving government agencies, higher education
institutions, public safety agencies, and prison systems would have needed to find new
suppliers and increase their operational expenditures.
54
Profit margins are generally low in
food service operations. According to the Restaurant Association's Restaurant Operations
Reports, 3 percent of profits come from full-service restaurants and 6 percent from limited-
service restaurants. A full-service restaurant's disposable plastic food service accounts for
0.3 percent of revenues, a fast-casual restaurant's 0.6 percent, a quick-service restaurant's
1.3 percent, and a coffee shop's 2.3 percent. A forced shift to specific foodservice products
could consume from 5 percent to nearly 40 percent of business profits at a 6 percent
operating profit margin.
A study in Maryland estimated a more restrictive statewide prohibition on plastic products
would result in an additional $34.9 million annually to replace the restricted products.
55
That for every $1 now spent on expanded polystyrene foodservice products, replacement
alternatives on average would costs $1.85.
56
Virginia has since rescinded this order in favor of recycling and other steps to create a more
circular economy.
57
ACC suggests a similar approach discussed further in our comments.
Legal Authority
ACC also questions whether and to what extent the GSA’s consideration of broad new
purchasing mandates or prohibitions relating to plastic as a material is consistent with
existing statutory authority. The GSA’s (and the President’s) authority to formulate
entirely new federal policies to drive government procurement is not unfettered.
54
MB Public Affairs, Inc.
55
MB Public Affairs, Inc., “Fiscal Impacts of Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene Food Service
Products in Maryland: SB 186 & HB 229,” Industry report, 2017,
https://www.plasticfoodservicefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Maryland-2017-fiscal-impact-
study-of-SB-186-and-HB-229.pdf.
56
MB Public Affairs, Inc.
57
“Exec. Order No. 17 Recognizing the Value of Recycling and Waste Reduction,” Pub. L. No. E.O. 17
(2022), https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/eo/EO-
17-Recognizing-The-Value-of-Recycling-and-Waste-Reduction.pdf.
10
We are not aware of any existing statutory authority that directs or would support a federal
procurement policy to disapprove or otherwise require substitutes for plastic packaging,
particularly considering its comparative high-performance functionality and low-cost
relative to competing materials.
Indeed, courts have held that the President’s exercise of general authority under the
Procurement Act requires that procurement policies have a “sufficiently close nexus” to the
statutory objectives of promoting “economical” and “efficient” government
purchasing. Even a broad and elastic interpretation of that authority would have difficulty
justifying a new procurement rule that, for example, sought to generally phase out “single-
use” plastic packaging from federal contracts. If GSA proceeds to the proposal of a rule
regarding plastic procurement, therefore, it will be important for GSA to clearly and
carefully identify the sources of statutory authority for the policies and measures that it
proposes to adopt.
Alternative Policy
While ACC does not support the ANPR’s “reducing single-use plastics” approach, ACC does
support the President’s goals of using federal procurement policy to (1) help address climate
change,
58
and (2) reduce waste, support recycled content markets, and circular economy
approaches.
59
Rather than the current approach, ACC urges the GSA to (1) base
procurement decisions on a total lifecycle analysis to ensure science-based decisions, and (2)
to create a purchasing preference for items containing recycled plastics. Additionally,
Congress should (1) create a modern regulatory system to develop a circular economy for
plastics, (2) develop national recycling standards for plastics, and (3) support an American-
designed producer responsibility system.
GSA Action
Incent Recycled Content
There is unprecedented momentum globally for developing a circular economy that can
benefit society and the environment. ACC believes that federal procurement policies could
help to develop a means for valuable and highly efficient plastic material to be reused again
and again rather than treated as waste. This will also help enabling a more circular
economy for plastics, and (in contrast to a generally applicable phase out of plastic
packaging as such) would likely contribute to economical and efficient government
procurement, consistent with the Procurement Act. In addition, the federal government
already has a statutory mandate to establish and implement recycled content mandates for
federally purchased goods, through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C.
6962), which EPA currently administers through its Comprehensive Procurement
Guideline Program.
58
Exec. Order No. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.
59
Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability.
11
The GSA could enhance the circularity of plastics by working with EPA to establish a
strong purchasing preference that encourages procurement of products made from recycled
plastic. For example:
• Create policies that give recycled plastics containing products purchasing preference
• Create resources that educate and equip purchasing officers to increase recycled
plastics procurement and recycling
• Give greater employee recognition for increasing agency procurement of recycled
plastics and recycling.
Procurement policy can help increase domestic demand for recycled plastics. Increasing
purchasing of plastics with recycled content promotes the use of recycled content in
manufacturing new products. The net effect is supporting the growth of green
manufacturing and green jobs.
Compostable plastics play an important role in creating a circular economy. GSA should
consider including compostable plastics in procurement policy. For example, creating
procurement preferences that recognize the unique value and nature compostables
contribute to circularity.
For example, as introduced, legislation in Virginia would have required agencies to give
preference to materials containing recycled content so long as those materials offer a cost
competitive advantage.
60
As enacted, the state must identify recycled content in procured
plastic materials and may use the information to award a bid.
LCA Guided Decision-making
As previously stated, it is erroneous to assume that plastic alternatives will always perform
better. The total carbon benefits of plastics must be considered. LCAs should guide GSA
decision making.
61
Several factors influence the LCA results, including shipping distance and method of
transportation, inputs in the manufacturing process package design, how a product is used
and disposed.
62
Consideration should also be given to the full life cycle of the material.
63
Waste management routes used for the end-of-life treatment of packaging are also shown to
be critical to understanding variations in LCA results.
64
Environmental indicators strongly suggest that recycling outperforms virgin production.
65
Recycling plastics saves between 30 and 80 percent of the carbon emissions produced
during virgin plastic processing and manufacturing.
66
It is for this and other reasons that
GSA should incentivize the use of recycled plastics. This is discussed further below.
60
Chris S. Runion and Alfonso H. Lopez, “Recycled Materials Advantage Program,” Pub. L. No. Ch.
781, H. 1287 (2022), https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=221&typ=bil&val=hb1287.
61
Voulvoulis et al., “Examining Material Evidence: The Carbon Footprint.”
62
Voulvoulis et al.
63
Voulvoulis et al.
64
Voulvoulis et al.
65
Voulvoulis et al.
66
Voulvoulis et al.
12
Congressional Action
Require a 30 by ’30 National Recycled Plastics Standard
To drive a consistent national approach to recycling and encourage the development of
efficient recycling systems, Congress should implement a national standard, requiring 30
percent recycled plastic in plastic packaging by 2030.
According to the U.S. EPA’s 2018 “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management” report,
only 9 percent or ~6 billion pounds of all plastics generated are currently collected for
recycling. In order to achieve the ambitious goal of 30 percent recycled plastic in all plastic
packaging by 2030, it is estimated that 13 billion pounds of recycled plastic material will
need to be produced every year according to an analysis conducted by the Independent
Commodity Intelligence Service (ICIS).
67
This is significantly more than the amount of
plastic currently collected for recycling. To bridge this gap and meet the 2030 goal, more
households will need access to recycling collection systems and significant enhancements
will need to be made to sorting systems as well as recycling infrastructure.
Mechanical recycling will need to continue to expand and new advanced recycling facilities
will need to be built for America to improve its recycling rate and increase the amount of
recycled plastic in packaging. ACC is committed to doing their part to address this
challenge. The industry has already announced many projects and initiatives to expand
advanced recycling capacity; however, more work is still required particularly in collection
and sorting to ensure these projects get the post-use plastics they need to be successful.
Rapidly scaling advanced recycling capacity will be essential to meet the target particularly
for food, medical and pharmaceutical grade packaging since advanced recycling produces
the virgin equivalent plastics these applications require. Supportive policies described
below to create a modern regulatory framework, national standards for plastics recycling
and sustainable financing for access and collection will greatly contribute to the
achievement of this goal.
Create a Modern Regulatory System to Develop a Circular Economy for Plastics
To create a circular economy for plastics, it is critical to better harmonize the nation’s
mechanical and advanced recycling efforts with existing state and international efforts,
which will help spur development of new recycling technologies and capacity. That is why
Congress should:
• Acknowledge the role of advanced recycling in creating a circular economy for plastic
packaging.
• Define advanced recycling as a manufacturing process and distinguishing it from
solid waste disposal.
• Recognize the ability of auditable third-party certification systems to verify
production of recycled plastics by applying mass balance attribution principles.
67
Prashanth Sabbineni, James Ray, and Paula Learnini, “INSIGHT: How the US Can Achieve High
Plastic Recycling Rates,” ICIS Explore (blog), July 6, 2021,
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/07/06/10660235/insight-how-the-us-can-achieve-
high-plastic-recycling-rates.
13
Thirty U.S. states still have outdated policies that could regulate advanced recycling as
“waste disposal” rather than manufacturing. Doing so sends entrepreneurs down the wrong
regulatory pathway for siting a facility, making it more difficult for companies to make
investments and deploy advanced recycling technologies. These technologies are essential
for companies that manufacture and sell consumer commodities, food and beverages to
reach the recommended 30% by ‘30 recycled plastics standard proposed in this document.
To date, 20 U.S. states have enacted legislation to create a more modernized regulatory
framework that paves the way for states to more effectively regulate these facilities as
manufacturing operations while simultaneously driving more investment into advanced
recycling facilities that transform hard-to-recycle plastics into new plastics and other high-
value materials and products.
Develop National Recycling Standards for Plastics
National recycling standards for plastics are needed to support a circular economy and help
achieve the EPA’s goal to increase the recycling rate to 50 percent by 2030. Current
localized differences in recycling practices and materials management creates confusion for
consumers and inefficient markets for recycled plastics. That committee should address:
To help overcome the inconsistencies among the more than 9,000 recycling jurisdictions,
Congress should empower the EPA and the DOE to bring together the plastics value chain
and municipalities to develop a set of national plastics recycling standards. A National
Plastics Recycling Standards Advisory Committee. That committee should address:
• Minimum household access standards to optimize the ability of Americans to
recycle.
• Minimum standards and best practices for consumer outreach, education and other
activities to increase the national recycling rate for all materials.
• Minimum infrastructure capacity standards to ensure jurisdictions can handle
common materials and adjust to new waste streams, including the development of
federal grant programs to assist with equitable access for all communities.
• Standards for municipal, state and federal government and industry data collection,
as well as metrics and reporting for reuse, recycling, composting, recovery and
disposal to help the EPA measure the national recycling rate and report against the
National Recycling Goal.
• Minimum processing requirements to increase the recycling of post-use plastics.
• The basic specifications needed for advanced recycling feedstocks to inform
consistent sorting and processing standards.
• Standards and data collection procedures to determine the annual supply of post-use
plastics available for advanced recycling feedstocks.
Based on the advice and consultation with the committee and other experts, the EPA and
the DOE will develop and implement the standards. As a large institution, the GSA could
play an important role in implementing the standards this committee suggests at federal
installations.
14
Study the Impact of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from all Material to Guide
Informed Policy
Public policy, especially on health, climate change and the environment, must be developed
based on data and science, not ideology. To guide Congress in its development of future
public policy on climate and material use, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) should
conduct a study on the comparative benefits, resource use, resource efficiency and carbon
impact across the full life cycle of materials, such as plastics, steel, aluminum, glass,
textiles, wood and paper. The study should cover raw material extraction, production,
transportation, packaging, use, disposal and all methods of materials recovery.
These findings should inform Congress, the EPA, the DOE and other agencies across the
federal government to further guide public policy on materials use and climate change. We
believe the study results will help inform sound, science-based decision making. Federal
policies should consider materials’ life cycle impacts, as well as contributions to optimizing
resources, conserving energy, preserving material and food and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. The study will leverage NAS expertise and support its mission “to provide
independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to
solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.”
Establish an American-Designed Producer Responsibility System
In many other parts of the world, producer responsibility systems that are financed and
directed by the private sector have helped support recycling access and collection. These
systems help generate a consistent supply of quality post-use materials for recycling.
Supply side policies such as this will be required to develop the infrastructure to collect and
process greater volumes of post-use plastics and other materials.
ACC supports an American-designed producer responsibility system for consumer
packaging that strengthens environmental protection and is dedicated to helping fund
infrastructure development. By fostering innovation and stimulating a competitive
marketplace, it will help implement critical components of a circular system. And it is
consistent with our Guiding Principles.
68
An American-designed producer responsibility system, prioritized to modernize and expand
access, collection, and consumer education, would help provide critical funding dedicated to
developing a more circular economy for consumer packaging. In addition, implementation of
clear national recycling standards that embrace all economic and environmentally
sustainable forms of advanced and mechanical recycling will be a critical enabler of any
producer responsibility system. A well-designed program and clear national standards
should provide the right incentives and disincentives to prevent litter, discourage
landfilling and encourage recycling aligned with the EPA Waste Management Hierarchy.
Conclusion
Choosing LCA-guided decision-making and incenting recycled plastics procurement are
better ways to foster a more circular economy. Such policies will help reduce the
68
Plastic Division, “5 Actions for Sustainable Change.”
15
consumption of finite resources and the production of waste and can help mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions.
Plastics companies are working to drive growth of this circular economy, but smart policies
are needed to accelerate progress. Creating a circular economy for plastics will help our
nation:
• Reduce the amount of used plastics going to landfills, incinerators, and oceans;
• Drive actions to combat climate change;
• Improve recycling rates;
• Conserve natural resources;
• Develop a more robust and competitive recycling market; and
• Support and increase domestic jobs.
Plastics contribute immensely to sustainability and play a central role in combating climate
change. Again, thank you for allowing us to submit these comments for consideration.
(End)
16
References
Advisory Committee on Packaging. “Packaging in Perspective.” Industry report. Packaging
Federation, October 2008. https://www.thefactsabout.co.uk/file.php?fileid=28.
Bukowski, Todd, and Michael Richmond. “A Holistic View of the Role of Flexible Packaging
in a Sustainable World.” Industry report. Flexible Packaging Association, April 9,
2018. https://perfectpackaging.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FPA-Holistic-View-of-
Sustainable-Packaging.pdf.
Elkington, John. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
Oxford, U.K.: Capstone, 1999.
Exec. Order No. 17 Recognizing the Value of Recycling and Waste Reduction, Pub. L. No.
E.O. 17 (2022).
https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-
virginia/pdf/eo/EO-17-Recognizing-The-Value-of-Recycling-and-Waste-Reduction.pdf.
Exec. Order No. 77, Vol. 37, Iss. 17 Va. Reg. Regs. § (2021).
http://register.dls.virginia.gov/vol37/iss17/v37i17.pdf.
Exec. Order No. 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring
Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 F.R. § 14 (2021).
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-01765.
Exec. Order No. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 86 F.R. § 19
(2021). https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0202-0012.
Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability, 86 F.R. § 236 (2021). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-
12-13/pdf/2021-27114.pdf.
Feber, David, Stefan Helmcke, Thomas Hundertmark, Chris Musso, Wen Jie Ong, Jonas
Oxgaard, and Jeremy Wallach. “Climate Impact of Plastics.” Industry report.
McKinsey & Company, July 2022.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/chemicals/our-insights/Climate-impact-of-
plastics.
Food & Agriculture Organization. “Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change.” Fact sheet.
United Nations, November 2015. https://www.fao.org/3/bb144e/bb144e.pdf.
Green, Kenneth P. “Canada’s Wasteful Plan to Regulate Plastic Waste,” 2022.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-wasteful-plan-to-regulate-
plastic-waste.pdf.
International Society of Professional Sustainability Professionals. ISSP-SA Study Guide.
1st Ed. Portland, OR, 2016.
Jolliet, Olivier, Myriam Saade-Sbeih, Shanna Shaked, Alexandre Jolliet, and Pierre
Crettaz. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. CRC Press, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b19138.
Lord, Richard. “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs,
and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement.” American Chemistry Council, July
2016. https://www.plasticpackagingfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ACC-
report-July-2016.pdf.
MB Public Affairs, Inc. “Fiscal Impacts of Prohibiting Expanded Polystyrene Food Service
Products in Maryland: SB 186 & HB 229.” Industry report, 2017.
https://www.plasticfoodservicefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Maryland-2017-
fiscal-impact-study-of-SB-186-and-HB-229.pdf.
———. “Initial Comments on Virginia Executive Order Number 77 (2021),” April 4, 2021.
17
Mullan, Michael. “Science and Technology of Modified Atmosphere Packaging.” Dairy
Science, January 2011. https://www.dairyscience.info/index.php/packaging/117-
modified-atmosphere-packaging.html.
Ooraikul, B., and M. E. Stiles, eds. Modified Atmosphere Packaging Of Food. Boston, MA:
Springer US, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2117-4.
Plastic Division. “5 Actions for Sustainable Change.” Industry report. Washington, D.C.:
American Chemistry Council, 2021.
https://www.plasticmakers.org/files/d6b3a34b9a88b1a6ee4da0a73b24562d740f80e4.
pdf.
Plastics Division. “U.S. Plastics Resin Producers Set Circular Economy Goals to Recycle or
Recover 100% of Plastic Packaging by 2040.” Media release. American Chemistry
Council, May 9, 2018. https://www.americanchemistry.com/chemistry-in-
america/news-trends/press-release/2018/us-plastics-resin-producers-set-circular-
economy-goals-to-recycle-or-recover-100-of-plastic-packaging-by-2040.
Runion, Chris S., and Alfonso H. Lopez. Recycled Materials Advantage Program, Pub. L.
No. Ch. 781, H. 1287 (2022). https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-
bin/legp604.exe?ses=221&typ=bil&val=hb1287.
Sabbineni, Prashanth, James Ray, and Paula Learnini. “INSIGHT: How the US Can
Achieve High Plastic Recycling Rates.” ICIS Explore (blog), July 6, 2021.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/07/06/10660235/insight-how-the-
us-can-achieve-high-plastic-recycling-rates.
Slaper, Timothy F., and Tanya J. Hall. “The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does
It Work?” Indiana Business Review 86, no. 1 (2011): 4–8.
Tsiamis, Demetra A., Melissa Torres, and Marco J. Castaldi. “Role of Plastics in Decoupling
Municipal Solid Waste and Economic Growth in the U.S.” Waste Management 77
(July 2018): 147–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Overview: Facts and Figures on
Materials, Wastes and Recycling,” October 2, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-
figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-
materials.
Voulvoulis, N., R. Kirkman, T. Giakoumis, P. Metivier, C. Kyle, and V. Midgley.
“Examining Material Evidence: The Carbon Footprint.” Imperial College London,
2020. https://www.americanchemistry.com/better-policy-
regulation/plastics/resources/examining-material-evidence-the-carbon-fingerprint.
18
Table 1
Responses to GSA Posed Questions
GSA Question
ACC Response
Part III. Request for public feedback
1. What is your role in your product’s
supply chain? Are you a manufacturer,
distributor, reseller, or other (comments
are encouraged from any impacted parties
including local municipalities and
economically and/or disadvantaged
communities)?
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is
a membership-based trade association. The
Plastics Division of ACC represents the
leading manufacturers of plastics and other
companies throughout the entire plastics
value chain. (See, Footnotes 5 and 6 above.)
2. Does your company have control over the
methodology in which your product is
packaged for shipment?
Not applicable.
3. What are the differences between a
paper based, aluminum based, or
compostable packaging and a single-use
plastic based packaging?
See responses to (a) and (b) below.
a. What are the performance
differences?
Generally, use of plastic in products and
packaging results in decreased GHG
emissions than common plastic
alternatives. (See, Environmental Impacts
on page 4).
b. What are the cost differences?
Generally, plastic packaging costs less than
plastic alternatives. (See, Increased Public
Costs on page 8)
4. Does your company have experience
using environmentally preferable
packaging?
GSA decision-making should be guided by
life cycle assessments. (See, Environmental
Impacts on page 4) and
GSA should not presume that plastic
alternatives are always environmentally
preferable. (See, Environmental Impacts on
page 4).
a. If an environmentally preferable
option was utilized, what benefits
did your company experience from
such a change?
b. What is the relationship between
your packaging and your product
branding?
c. Will packaging be considered as
part of your company’s climate
financial disclosure, if applicable?
5. What is the best way for GSA to aid its
contractors in moving to environmentally
preferable packing and packaging? How
quickly should it move?
6. Are there any market, regulatory,
statutory or cost barriers to selecting
environmentally preferable packaging such
Question 6 to 9 assumes that plastic
alternatives are always environmentally
19
GSA Question
ACC Response
as paper based or biodegradable
packaging?
If yes, please specify what the barrier is
and what is creating the barrier (i.e., the
product’s casing or the shipment
packaging).
preferable. This is not the case. (See,
Environmental Impacts on page 4).
Instead, GSA decision-making should be
guided by life cycle assessments. (See,
Environmental Impacts on page 4 and LCA
Guided Decision-making on page 11.)
In addition to LCA guided decision-making,
GSA should also consider incenting
recycled plastics content procurement. (See,
Incent Recycled Content on page 10.)
7. What should be considered when
developing a timeline to implement
regulatory changes in reducing single use
plastic as either the primary product, or as
the packaging material?
8. Which, if any, single use plastic items
GSA should choose not to contract for
through its federal supply schedules? Are
there exceptions GSA should make to
ensure no harm to customer agency
missions?
9. How could compliance with reduced or
eliminated plastic content be verified?
a. How can GSA and industry take
advantage of innovative
technologies or business practices to
improve accuracy of verification
while minimizing the administrative
burden on companies?
b. Are there private sector
standards, ecolabels, and/or
certifications your company is using
to meet environmentally preferred
packaging goals?
IV Request for economic data and consumer research
1. What will the estimated cost be to
change, reduce, or eliminate single-use
plastic from your product lines?
Questions 1 to 4 assumes that plastic
alternatives will cost less. This is not likely
the case. (See, Increased Public Costs on
page 8).
2. What will the estimated costs be to
change, reduce, or eliminate single-use
plastic packaging?
3. Will a change from single-use plastic
packaging result in a reduced cost in
freight?
4. What reporting or monitoring standards,
if any, exist to track the use of more
environmentally preferable packaging
material?
GSA decision-making should be guided by
life cycle assessments. (See, LCA Guided
Decision-making on page 11.)
20
GSA Question
ACC Response
5. What is the liability risk of any of the
purchased goods being damaged if
packaging is reduced or changed?
GSA decision-making should be guided by
life cycle assessments. (See, Environmental
Impacts on page 4 and LCA Guided
Decision-making on page 11.) A properly
constructed LCA will also consider product
loss.
6. What other identifiable risks are posed
to industry, the government, and overall
economy if packaging is reduced or
changed?
In these comments, ACC has raised
environmental, public costs, and scope
concerns. ACC reserves the right to raise
further concerns. (See, Introduction on page
3.)
Additionally, GSA should consider the
topics of the ANPR through a framework
such as the triple bottom line (TBL).
69
When calculating the TBL, multiple
measures and variables should be
included.
70
69
John Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business (Oxford,
U.K.: Capstone, 1999).
70
Timothy F. Slaper and Tanya J. Hall, “The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It
Work?,” Indiana Business Review 86, no. 1 (2011): 4–8.
21
Table 2
Selected Presidential Polices, Effect of ANPR, and ACC Suggestions
Executive Order
ACC Suggestion
Procurement. The national
climate change resilience
strategies include federal
procurement.
71
GSA should
prioritize climate action in
procurement.
72
LCA based decisions.
Base procurement
decisions based on
lifecycle analysis will
help ensure science-
based climate decisions.
Federal GHG Reduction.
Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse
gas emissions must be reduced
by federal agencies.
73
Science-driven decision-
making. Agency decision
making must be guided by the
full costs of greenhouse gas
emissions.
74
This recognizes the
breadth of climate impacts and
includes the social cost of
methane.
75
Climate decisions
should be driven by science.
76
Circular economy. Federal
agencies must (1) minimize
waste, (2) support markets for
recycled products, (3) promote a
circular economy,
77
and (4)
divert at least 50 percent of
Recycled plastics
preference. Create a
purchasing preference
for items containing
recycled plastics. This
will help: (1) reduce
landfilling pressure, (2)
create a market for
71
Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability.
72
Exec. Order No. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.
73
Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability; Exec. Order No. 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring
Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis.
74
Exec. Order No. 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To
Tackle the Climate Crisis.
75
Exec. Order No. 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To
Tackle the Climate Crisis.
76
Exec. Order No. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad; Exec. Order No. 13990
Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis.
77
“Save Our Seas 2.0 Act” Sec 2.: “The term ‘‘circular economy’’ means an economy that uses a
systems-focused approach and involves industrial processes and economic activities that(A) are
restorative or regenerative by design; (B) enable resources used in such processes and activities to
maintain their highest values for as long as possible; and (C) aim for the elimination of waste through
the superior design of materials, products, and systems (including business models).”
22
nonhazardous waste, including
food.
78
recycled plastic, (3) take
an approach consistent
with the circular
economy, and (4)
recycled content will
help support landfill
diversion.
Note. Additionally, Congress should (1) require a 30 by ’30 national recycled plastics
standard, (2) create a modern regulatory system to develop a circular economy for plastics,
(3) develop national recycling standards for plastics, (4) study the impact of greenhouse gas
emissions from all material to guide informed policy, and (5) support an American-designed
producer responsibility system.
79
(See, Congressional Action on page 12).
78
Exec. Order. No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability.
79
Plastic Division, “5 Actions for Sustainable Change.”
23
Figure 1
Effects of Current ANPR and ACC Suggested Policy
Note. Additionally, Congress should (1) require a 30 by ’30 national recycled plastics
standard, (2) create a modern regulatory system to develop a circular economy for plastics,
(3) develop national recycling standards for plastics, (4) study the impact of greenhouse gas
emissions from all material to guide informed policy, and (5) support an American-designed
producer responsibility system.
ANPR Effect
•(-) Plastic
•(+)
Alternatives
Environemental
Impact
•(+) GHG emissions
•(+) Landfilling
Current
ANPR
Policy Effect
•(+) Recycled
plastics
•(+) Sustainable
decisionmaking
Environemental
Impact
•(-) GHG emissions
•(-) Landfilling
ACC
•(+) LCA
decisionmaking
•(+) Incent
recycled plastics