[Senate Hearing 118-173]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-173
HEARING ON SOLUTIONS FOR SINGLE-USE WASTE:
EXPANDING REFILL AND REUSE INFRASTRUCTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL SAFETY,
WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-167 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental
Justice, and Regulatory Oversight
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma, Ranking Member
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex Virginia (ex officio)
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 27, 2023
OPENING STATEMENTS
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........ 1
Mullin, Hon. Markwayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma.. 2
WITNESSES
Meng, Dacie, Policy and Institutions Senior Manager, North
America, Ellen Macarthur Foundation............................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions from Senators:
Carper....................................................... 11
Whitehouse............................................... 16
Sullivan................................................. 16
Schmid, Clemence, General Manager, Loop Global................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Responses to additional questions from Senators:
Carper................................................... 28
Whitehouse............................................... 31
Sullivan................................................. 33
Debus, Tim, President and CEO, Reusable Packaging Association.... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Responses to additional questions from Senators:
Whitehouse............................................... 42
Sullivan................................................. 44
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Senator Merkley and Senator Markwayne from:
Closed LOOP Partner.......................................... 59
Mercari...................................................... 61
Mercari 2023 Reuse Report........................................ 62
HEARING ON SOLUTIONS FOR SINGLE-USE
WASTE: EXPANDING REFILL AND REUSE
INFRASTRUCTURE
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Jeff Merkley
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Merkley, Mullin, Carper, Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Merkley. Good morning. Welcome to the third hearing
of the Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental
Justice, and Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee on environmental
and public health dangers and solutions in regard to plastics.
The folk singer, Pete Seeger, once said if it cannot be
reduced, reused, repaired, rebuilt, refurbished, resold,
recycled or composted, it should be restricted or redesignated
or removed from production. We are here to explore that
philosophy in the context of how to have our containers and
packaging have longer life and serve us better than the single-
use world we are often living in.
Generations have grown up believing the mantra of the three
Rs, reduce, reuse recycle, and then everything is resolved. We
know with plastics only about 8 percent is recycled. I think
this past year it dropped to 6 percent. Instead, it gets the
three Bs: it is buried, it is burned or borne out sea. It
really has a remarkable, almost near eternal, life span.
Plastics break down into smaller and smaller pieces until
they are microplastics. They are in our lungs, our bloodstream,
in the breast milk we feed our babies, and are full of all
kinds of chemicals we do not necessarily want in our bodies,
our bloodstream or our breast milk. That is to say nothing of
the massive amount of fossil fuels needed to produce single-use
plastics.
I was thinking back to when I was in grade school and
Alpenrose Dairy had a box on our front porch. They dropped off
the milk in a glass jar. Then the glass jug went back into the
box and according to whatever you ordered, other products
showed up. Those glass jars got used eternally.
After my senior year of high school, I was working as a
mechanic. The lunchroom had a vending machine. I would get an
orange soda in a glass bottle. Every time one was different, I
would put it up on the wall and by the end of the summer, it
had 8 to 12 different evolutions because the bottles were
simply washed and reused, and reused and reused.
Well, the old sometimes becomes the new. Ideas we had in
the past are looked at again as we face different issues. With
reusable containers, consumers can either refill containers or
return them to be sanitized, refilled or restocked on store
shelves.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which is represented here
today by one of our witnesses, estimates that replacing 20
percent of single-use plastic packaging with reusables would be
an opportunity worth at least $10 billion of economic activity.
The World Economic Forum estimates that reusing just 10 percent
of plastic products would cut the annual amount of ocean
plastic pollution by 50 percent.
This is not theoretical. We are already making recycling
work in Oregon. Oregon was the first State to require that all
bottles are returnable with a deposit and 90 percent of our
bottles are recycled. This program employs about 500 people
across the State.
Even some of our Oregon brewers are now using a common beer
bottle that can be cleaned and refilled up to 40 times, meaning
the bottles do not need to be crushed, melted or remade after
every use. That actually does go right back to the experience
we had early in the bottle bill in my State.
It is not just bottles we are talking about, not just
drinks we are talking about. At 25 Fred Meyer stores in the
Portland metropolitan area and some Giant Grocery Stores here
in D.C., customers can buy products from name brands like
Cascade, Clorox, Gillette in reusable containers from Loop, an
innovative company that is also represented on today's panel.
We are fortunate to have a few witnesses who will help us
to learn more about how you build a culture and economy of
reusables. We are joined by Dacie Meng from the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation which focuses on the issue of plastics and
rebuilding a circular economy. We are also joined by Clemence
Schmid, who is the General Manager for Loop, a social
enterprise whose mission is ``eliminating the idea of waste.''
With them is Tim Debus, the President and CEO of Reusable
Packaging Association whose member companies promote reusable
transport packaging systems like pallets, bins and containers.
Thank you all for being here this morning.
With that, let me turn things over to the Ranking Member of
the committee, Senator Mullin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start with thanking all the witnesses for
attending the hearing today. We appreciate your taking the time
to be with us today. It is not always an easy trip to get here
to Washington, DC. It is definitely not an easy trip getting
back home. We do want to thank you for taking the time to
enlighten us and share your thoughts and your experiences.
As I said in my first subcommittee hearing, I believe free
market innovation is the best way to promote sustainability in
all forms of waste management, whether it be in reusable
packaging or recycling. However, as we discuss potential
solutions, we must ensure America's supply chains remain
productive and competitive in the global market.
As we have seen in America and in other countries, a one-
size-fits-all mandate is not necessarily the right solution,
especially for smaller businesses who are less likely to be
able to absorb those extra costs. Businesses should not be
forced to spend time and capital on unnecessary and erroneous
regulations that do not serve their customers or their business
model.
Regulatory overreach has the potential to hamper free
market solutions, including for reusable and refillable
packaging. These solutions should not require a heavy hand of
government to be successful in the marketplace.
Our Nation's economy thrives when private industry has the
right to choose how to tackle these hard-to-address issues in a
way that provides realistic, affordable, and attractive
solutions for both consumers and businesses. Otherwise, these
ideas simply will not survive.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today
and look forward to your testimonies.
I yield back.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
We will now turn to our panel. We are grateful for your
joining us today and bringing your experiences and knowledge.
We will begin with Dacie Meng from the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation.
STATEMENT OF DACIE MENG, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONS SENIOR
MANAGER, NORTH AMERICA, ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION
Ms. Meng. Thank you so much.
Good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Mullin.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today on this
important topic.
As you said, I am Dacie Meng, the Policy and Institutions
Senior Manager at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in North
America. EMF is a non-profit organization with the aim of
accelerating the transition to a circular economy in order to
tackle some of the biggest challenges we face today like
climate change, biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution.
This work is more important to me than ever, as I have just
returned from maternity leave last week after having my second
son. I am very grateful to be here with you all today and be
talking about this.
One of EMF's key areas of focus is plastics. We have
published and continue working on research on the topic. We
have mobilized businesses and other leaders toward a more
circular economy for plastics.
In collaboration with the U.N. Environment Programme, our
Global Commitment has united more than 500 organizations,
representing 20 percent of all plastic packaging produced
globally, behind a common vision of a circular economy for
plastics that includes reuse. We have convened the Business
Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty together with WWF.
That brings together over 130 businesses and financial
institutions committed to supporting the development of an
ambitious, effective, and legally binding U.N. treaty to end
plastic pollution. The Business Coalition has called for global
support for reuse policies.
Today, I will quickly cover why reuse is key to addressing
plastic pollution; what we mean when we talk about reuse; why
we need policy intervention; and what policy tools can best
support reuse systems.
To start, reuse is key to addressing plastic pollution. No
single strategy can sufficiently reduce plastic leakage into
the oceans. Reducing plastic pollution requires a comprehensive
and integrated set of solutions from material redesign, plastic
reduction, substitution, and reuse, all the way to improved
recycling and disposal systems.
Reuse is an essential component in this mix, and has
incredible economic potential. As Senator Merkley said,
replacing 20 percent of single-use plastic packaging with
reusable materials represents a $10 billion opportunity.
Furthermore, scaling reuse options and new delivery models is
key to reducing material consumption, decreasing single-use
plastic applications, taking effective action against plastic
pollution, and capturing co-benefits.
To accelerate collaborative action on scaling reuse, EMF is
currently working with reuse partners and experts to show how
scaled reuse return systems can perform economically,
environmentally, and experientially in comparison to single-
use.
No, for what is a reuse or a use return system. Reusing
packaging means that the packaging is refilled or used again
for the same purpose for which it was conceived. Reusable
packaging has been designed to be or has proven it can be
reused a minimum number of times. By contrast, single-use
packaging is designed to be used just once.
When talking about reuse, it may be helpful to think of
business-to-consumer reuse in four different categories:
packages refilled at home; refilled on the go; returned from
home; or returned on the go.
These systems present countless potential benefits, but
there are challenges to implementing reuse models in practice
resulting in the need for policy intervention to fully capture
the reuse opportunity.
Reuse will be a crucial piece of the solution to reduce
plastic pollution, but business as usual cannot get us there.
Current commitments will only get us a 7 percent decrease in
plastic flow into the ocean by 2040. We need policy
intervention to address the barriers to building and scaling
the shared infrastructure and systems required to make the
economics work and maximize the environmental benefits of
reuse.
The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty has
called for policy support to encourage further investment into
reuse and refill systems recommending realistic targets,
combined with effective economic incentives, definitions, and
metrics to shift the supply chain.
Businesses want a level playing field and they need policy
to get there. We need ambitious, binding reuse targets to reach
the scale and shared infrastructure needed. We need measures to
make the economics work like extended producer responsibility;
deposit return schemes, tax breaks, grant funding, et cetera.
We need harmonized definitions and design to help ensure we are
building efficient, beneficial and scalable systems.
These policies will keep packaging in the economy at its
highest value for as long as possible and avoid the production
of virgin plastics. It is best if these policies are packaged
together at the Federal level and are consistent with the
action underway at the global level.
While local and small-scale solutions have demonstrated the
opportunity and will continue to play a key role in the
implementation of reuse systems, we need cohesive Federal
action to accelerate progress.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Meng follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Welcome back from maternity
leave and congratulations. You said it was your second son?
Ms. Meng. Yes.
Senator Merkley. That is just awesome. The best part of
life is raising those kids.
We are going to turn next to Clemence Schmid, who serves as
General Manager at Loop Global. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CLEMENCE SCHMID,
GENERAL MANAGER, LOOP GLOBAL
Ms. Schmid. Thank you, Chairman Merkley and subcommittee
members, for the opportunity to speak at this hearing.
I am Clemence Schmid, General Manager of Loop, a global
reuse platform launched by TerraCycle. As background,
TerraCycle, headquartered in Trenton, New Jersey, is on a
mission to eliminate the idea of waste. We employ over 500
people providing national recycling, recycled content and reuse
services in 20 countries for 20 years.
We run national platforms to collect and recycle, how to
recycle products and packages ranging from flexible food
packaging to personal protective equipment, toothbrushes to
pill blister packs, and even cigarette butts and dirty diapers.
TerraCycle manages the largest contact lens and eye care
recycling program in the United States, and is the world's
leading recycler of coffee capsules and beauty waste to just
name a few.
TerraCycle launched Loop in 2019. Loop enables brands and
retailers to shift from single-use packaging systems to
reusable ones in the most convenient way possible. As a result,
we have partnered with the leading retailers in the United
States, France and Japan from Walmart to Carrefour as well as
200 leading consumer goods companies from Proctor and Gamble to
Nestle.
In focusing on the three most important stakeholders to
transition from disposable to reusable consumption, consumers,
brands and retailers, the primary goal of Loop has been to
enable the transition to reuse in the least disruptive way
possible.
For consumers, the shopping experience is the same. Simply
buy your everyday product at your preferred retailer. There is
no requirement to clean or refill oneself. The only new concept
is a fully refundable deposit attached to each container at
purchase. The deposit is then reimbursed in full upon the
return of the empty package at any participating location
regardless of where it was purchased. As you can see here, the
goal is to make a reusable purchase feel like a disposable one.
For brands, Loop is able to integrate any disposable
product from baby food to motor oil to peanut butter, shampoo
or laundry detergent with the goal of driving the least amount
of change to existing supply chains as possible. In fact the
only change to enable reuse with Loop was to shift from
disposable containers to reusable ones.
For retailers, everything stays the same as with disposable
product distribution. The only change is to enable the Loop
return bin at the front of their store.
Loop acts as a central platform steward and is
operationally the waste management function of reuse. We
collect back the empty use container, sort, store and clean
them and return deposits. Our objective is make reuse as
convenient and affordable as single-use.
Reuse has to be a part of our future. Reuse is better for
the environment. This has been shown multiple times in
different studies like third party-reviewed life cycle
assessments from both the private and public sector.
Reuse creates more jobs. It creates significantly more
domestic jobs than disposal or even recycling. Reuse avoids the
negative impact of disposable plastic production, a form of
pollution that permanently affects disadvantaged and minority
communities in the United States.
Reuse is financially viable. It has run at scale in the
United States until the 1950's and to date runs at scale in
Canada with beer all the way to Germany with most beverages as
well as in the business-to-business sector with secondary and
tertiary packaging.
By treating packaging as an asset versus the cost of good
salt, Loop's platform enables manufacturers to innovate and
create better packaging. In the process, manufacturers become
financially motivated to make their packages as long lasting as
possible.
Reuse is proven with consumers, brands and retailers. The
key to unleashing the full environmental and economic
opportunity is simply to scale, more product available in more
stores and more return points.
Scaling reuse requires investment from private actors. To
invest, the business needs certainty. We believe the government
can support this in two ways.
Support through legislation. For example, we are very
supportive of reuse being a part of Senator Merkley's national
bottle bill and would recommend not to limit it to bottle only.
Providing public funding to scale reuse funding should be
focused on the infrastructure creation and the reuse platform
operators. Now is the moment to act. Delaying action could
stall the measurable progress that has been made toward a more
sustainable future and set us back decades.
With existing consumer demand and voluntary action
underway, government support will be the catalyst to turn reuse
into a full-scale national reality.
I urge you to actively support reuse through legislation
and investment. I appreciate the opportunity to provide
testimony and would be pleased to address any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schmid follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for bringing your
expertise on this model to the panel for discussion and
education. We appreciate it.
We are going to now turn to Tim Debus. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF TIM DEBUS, PRESIDENT AND
CEO, REUSABLE PACKAGING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Debus. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
Mullin, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
share insights on reusable packaging and the important role of
reuse infrastructures for not only environmental benefit, but
also for economic value creation and social wellbeing.
My name is Tim Debus and I represent the non-profit, global
trade organization for the reusable transport packaging
industry. The Reusable Packaging Association, or RPA, consists
of businesses that supply, use, and provide services to supply
chain packaging products like pallets, bulk bins, containers,
and trays, for their continuous use in a managed system
featuring the packaging's recovery, maintenance, and return for
their intended purpose.
Today, RPA member companies are collectively involved in
handling or servicing billions of reusable transport movements
each year for commercial goods worldwide. Still, overall,
reusable packaging is the minority share in the supply chain.
I want to emphasize three points on reusable packaging as
part of the solution for single-use waste. First, reuse is not
about the material or product, but the system. No packaging can
be considered reusable unless it can be collected, returned,
and prepared cost-effectively for another use.
We need to be systems-thinkers when it comes to solving
complex environmental problems. This is the crux of reusable
packaging in which collaboration and coordination within
operating systems lead to eliminating solid waste and
pollution.
Also, reusable packaging is material neutral, typically
made from plastics, wood, aluminum, or glass. The key is
product design for durability, not disposability, using safe
and recyclable materials, and having the system in place to
ensure repeated use and end-of-life recycling.
Plastic-based reusable packaging can be very effective in a
managed system where product utility is extended and plastic
material is valued. In my written testimony, I cite several
real-world examples of how RPA member companies are keeping
plastics in circulation and out of the environment.
My second point is that reuse systems are really about
getting and generating new economic growth and value. If we
only consider reusable packing in response to environmental
problems or sustainability quotas, then we are missing the big
picture opportunity.
Reusable products can be designed with feature-rich
properties that optimize performance in user experience and
embed technologies for smart data capturing outputs. These
properties can save money in transportation and warehousing,
reduce food damage and waste, offer ergonomic designs for
worker safety, perform with automated or robotic handling
systems and most excitingly, bring tech-enabled visibility to
supply chains.
Reuse also builds resiliency in business operations by
being available and already available for use, avoiding
volatile raw material pricing and supply constraints that can
interfere with the endless manufacturing of single-use
products. A national strategy that incentivizes reusable
packaging systems can have far-reaching economic impacts. With
reuse, we can achieve both economic and environmental
prosperity.
My third point is that there are many Federal policy
opportunities to support reuse infrastructures, but we need to
prioritize reuse and broaden the material scope. Less than 2
years ago, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law heavily invested
to transform municipal solid waste management and recycling.
Now, Congress has the opportunity to prioritize game-changing
investments in reuse systems, striking the right balance on
complementary pieces to the puzzle, reuse for waste prevention,
and recycling for waste management.
A national strategy in advancing reusable and refillable
packaging systems should prevent waste of all material types,
not just plastics. We should institute consistency across waste
streams to avoid fragmented efforts in our source reduction
initiatives and change behaviors and culture for the
responsible use of all resources.
A final comment is that is lesser known but is very
important to our industry, is the need to strengthen
enforcement of crime laws and prosecutions pertaining to the
theft of stolen reusable packaging assets. We make great
products with valued materials and far too often, they are
getting stolen, diminishing the reuse potential.
We appreciate the time to be here today and I look forward
to any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Debus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you all. We are going to dive into
5-minute periods.
Ms. Meng, I think your team is involved in the
international discussion because plastics in oceans, for
example, is not just an American challenge but a global
challenge. I think the Foundation convened the Business
Coalition for Global Plastics Treaty.
What is really the core goal of that? Is it to set targets
or is the goal to have requirements that each nation basically
says yes, we are going to do X, Y, Z to accomplish those goals?
Ms. Meng. If I understand your question, it is about the
global U.N. negotiations around the Global Plastics Treaty and
whether the Business Coalition will be looking at nationally
determined contributions or national action plans where
countries are deciding what they are doing or if there will be
kind of mandatory components to the International Treaty.
From EMF's perspective, and I believe also the Business
Coalition's perspective, we need binding reuse targets on the
topic of reuse in particular but binding targets in the treaty
itself. Rather than having countries self-determining what
those targets will be, of course, they will be implemented by
the individual countries.
Senator Merkley. Right now, I believe the U.S. is pushing
to not have binding targets and set up, if you will, kind of a
happy talk about what could possibly be achieved. That will not
get us there.
Ms. Meng. I agree.
Senator Merkley. Ms. Schmid, I am picturing, for example,
the plastic jug that I have with liquid laundry detergent. You
spoke about fully refundable deposits. In Oregon, we have a
deposit on bottles, a 10-cent deposit. It has resulted in about
90 percent return rate.
Is the concept extending that model to everything else,
shampoo bottles, laundry detergent bottles, so on and so forth?
Ms. Schmid. The system is about bringing the value into the
package. We know deposit is a very good way to do it without
burdening the citizen. Yes, it is about bringing a deposit on
everything.
Senator Merkley. We have a system in Oregon where you throw
everything into a bag. Then the bag is tossed into a tray at a
warehouse where a computer takes a picture of it and
immediately evaluates how much of those things are recyclable.
It is an amazing system to watch in action and works really
well.
If that type of program was extended to other plastic
bottles of all kinds, do you see that as workable? Has any
State undertaken to really expand? It is really set up for lots
of things that look like a soda bottle. Other plastic
containers are maybe much larger and may be different in shape.
Can the same basic system be expanded?
Ms. Schmid. That is about building the infrastructure that
is tailored for reuse as opposed to recycling as we have. In
reuse, every container is sorted individually. This is what
Loop has been demonstrating not only in the U.S. but also in
Europe and in Japan. The technology would be close to what you
described, but would be a step up in order to be able to
isolate packaging, shape, material and content.
Senator Merkley. I have these bottles. Currently some of
them are reused through that system I described; some are
reused like glass bottles. All the plastic ones are essentially
ground up for recycling which means different types of plastic
have to be sorted and what, how much can be rebuilt from them.
You are really, if I understand, you are saying the best
solution would be for the laundry detergent bottle to be able
to be refilled and reused, rather than ground up to recreate a
new product?
Ms. Schmid. Yes, absolutely. It is much better to reuse
product that is existing than having to transform it even
through recycling.
Senator Merkley. Say that bottle arrives at a central
warehouse with other recycled plastics, how do we get that
bottle back to the manufacturer to be refilled and restocked on
the shelf? Is that really a practical strategy?
Ms. Schmid. It is happening today in the United States and
in other countries. That is what Loop is doing.
The way we operate is, to the point you are describing, we
are bringing all of the bottles to a central location where
they are being sorted, stored, cleaned and being sent back to
each of the manufacturers.
Senator Merkley. The manufacturer does not have to worry
about any of the complexities of the cleaning. When you have a
big container of that particular bottle, you can ship it back
to the manufacturer and they throw it back into their
production loop?
Ms. Schmid. Absolutely correct.
Senator Merkley. My 5 minutes are up. I will turn to
Senator Mullin.
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman. Once again, thank you
to the witnesses for being here. I will start with Mr. Debus.
In your testimony, and by the way, your voice carries quite
well. I was listening to you and I thought maybe you should
have a voiceover job too. I was impressed by that. It reminded
me of my colleague from Oklahoma, James Lankford. He has one of
those voices, too. Not much of a face, but a good voice. I am
kidding. He is a very good friend of mine.
In your testimony, you stated reusable packaging companies
in the supply chain continue to demonstrate success in
responsible management of plastics. How can reusable packing
support upcycling and recycled plastic content?
Mr. Debus. There is a tremendous amount of great activity
taking place in the market. RPA member manufacturing companies
as well are taking back 100 percent of their products from the
user community in order to recycle and reprocess into new
product manufacturing. It is part of that whole circle system,
the closed loop, if you will, of bringing back their products.
They are of value so they can use them and regrind and recycle
material into other products.
They also really look to put high recycled content rates
into their manufactured products. One of our member companies
has an average of over 80 percent of recycled content in their
pallets and their bullpens of plastic-based products. They are
achieving full circularity in terms of utilizing plastic
products, but then getting those products back and continuing
to use that material when it is time for its recycling in its
intended reuse.
For upcycling, it is basically taking the waste material of
recycled resin and putting it back into useful products. If you
look at the EPA waste hierarchy pyramid, it is going from the
lower part of the pyramid to going up from recycling to source
reduction of reuse.
Or in the circular economy technical cycle, it is going
from the outer loop of recycling to the inner loop of preferred
activity. It is really an upcycling process of taking the
plastic material and putting it into useful and valuable
products that can go from recycling to reuse or waste
management to waste prevention and allow for tremendous value
associated with the continued life of that product.
Senator Mullin. How prevalent is reusable packaging in a
supply chain right now in different or various markets?
Mr. Debus. Reusable packaging for the supply chain, they
are the workhorses of commerce. There is an estimate of all the
industrial and consumer products that move in this Country,
over 90 percent on a pallet, for example. They are behind the
scenes but are ubiquitous in the economies and markets all
around us. It does range pretty considerably between vertical
markets.
The automotive industry, for example, is a big user of
reusable packaging. They have tighter loops between parts to
assembly and they definitely have that continuous program in
terms of distributing products for their use.
The retail industry is where we have a lot of work that is
needed. Retail could definitely use some additional penetration
or adoption associated with reusable packaging. There is great
variability associated with the market adoption of reusable
packaging for the supply chain.
Senator Mullin. When we start talking about reusable, which
is a great concept, the Chairman brought up the fact that milk
deliveries used to be done that way, I understand that. Every
time you touch a product, there are labor costs. Cost is
associated with anything that we do. It has to be economically
reasonable for us to be able to do that. When we start talking
about reusable, you realize that the most cost in every product
out there is labor.
How do we combine those two because each time you touch
that product, every time you touch this bottle, touch a
reusable product, there are costs associated with that. How do
you merge those? We have labor costs going through the roof in
the United States, which is good. I am not saying that is a bad
thing but it also comes with a cost.
How do you make that efficient for the consumers?
Ultimately that is who is buying the product. Do any of you
want to take that on? That is a hard one, right?
Ms. Schmid. I am happy to kick off. It is a great question.
There is cost of labor in production of single-use
packaging today also, so they are not limited to only reuse. I
think you are touching on a very good point, where you have
proof in business modeling exercise. We talked about businesses
which are scale and are profitable on the reusable side versus
single-use. That is because you are also making savings on
reusing your assets as many times as you can.
Mr. Debus. I was going to say this is where scale or value
becomes critical because with value, you are able to drive down
the efficiencies at certain touch points, filling up trucks
with full loads when they are being transported say from point
of collection to point of maintenance or back to the packing
lines, for example. When we talk about scaling reuse, it really
is about having the volume efficiencies to be able to optimize
the touch points, drive costs down each step of the way.
The unique thing about reusable packaging is that it really
brings the supply chain or consumers together with brands,
because you all care now about the packaging. The packaging has
value to it today, whereas today, before with single-use, you
basically passed that packaging down and absolved yourself of
no longer having accountability or responsibility for it.
With reusable packaging, the touchpoint is everyone is
benefiting from the reusable packaging properties that are
designed to be able to work within each of those steps along
the supply chain.
It really requires coordination and working in partnership
among those who touch the product to be able to optimize those
savings as well. That is where that system thinking comes into
play, is to be able to really generate the biggest economic and
environmental outcome associated with reuse.
Senator Mullin. Thank you. I went over my time. I apologize
for that.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman Merkley. Thank you
to our Ranking Member for continuing to focus on the issue of
plastics because it is an unnatural substance and does not
biodegrade. It just breaks down into smaller and smaller
pieces.
We are seeing it increasingly in things like women's breast
milk, in things like the contents of a baby's diaper, in things
like raindrops falling from the sky in Colorado. Focusing on
preventing this and also understanding what the potential harms
are of all that microplastic and all that plastic waste I think
is a very valuable use of the committee's and subcommittee's
time.
My plaudits to Senator Merkley for whom this is a great
cause and passion.
Ms. Schmid, Senator Sullivan and I have done a couple of
plastics bills, Save Our Seas and Save Our Seas 2.0, and we are
in the process of working on Save Our Seas 3.0 right now. One
of the areas on which I expect we will likely focus is the area
of recycling and how spectacularly unsuccessful ordinary
recycling presently is with less than 10 percent of what you
put in your blue bin actually ending up recycling, with less
than 2 percent of recycled content in new plastics.
Trying to figure out how to make recycling work I think is
going to be a very important piece of this. I would love to
have your advice on what you think the best things are that the
Federal Government could do to promote more effective recycling
and to eliminate sham recycling.
If you have a quick response, I would welcome it now but I
would also encourage you to take that back as a question for
the record and give a more fulsome response if you would care
to.
Ms. Schmid. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for the
question. It is a topic that would require a bit more sustained
response so I will take it back.
Senator Whitehouse. That would be fine.
In your sector of the economy, Mr. Debus, are there
incentives or other things the government could do to encourage
more reuse? In particular, can we get rid of peanuts, those
damned little foam things?
Mr. Debus. Right, make reusable peanuts? That is a nice
idea. We should talk after the hearing.
No question about it, the one thing we have to look at is
that reuse can be very complex in terms of the requirements of
that whole system to work. Many times it is an investment.
Companies are putting capital forward to produce a pool of
reusable assets or are changing their processes internally and
it requires additional manpower or streamlining operations in
order to make it work. It is an investment in process change.
Senator Whitehouse. Do me a favor and make some
recommendations for us, if you would, on how we can support
those process changes because I think it is a win-win situation
if you can get over the initial hurdle of the investment
required to make the process changes.
Mr. Debus. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Meng, welcome. Thank you for being
here.
The other bill I am working on is called the REDUCE Act.
That would put a fee on virgin plastic that is designated for
single-use plastic products. At the moment, one of the things
that is holding back recycling in that area is it is cheaper to
make it new than it is to get out of recycling.
It is very hard to convince economically motivated entities
like corporations to do things that are against their economic
interests. It is a policy choice we have to make to put
recycled plastic and new manufactured plastic on the same
footing. That is the definition of what economists would call a
negative externality, that by virtue of using the new plastic,
you are adding more plastic to the system making life more
dangerous, adding more waste to the oceans, adding more waste
to the system and putting more of a burden on people.
If there is no charge for that, you are letting people get
away with something that economists would say they should not
be allowed to get away with. If you are a pure market
economist, you would want to address this problem. What is
MacArthur's advice in this area?
Ms. Meng. Thank you for that question and excellent
thoughts on the topic.
I think you are entirely correct that we need to be
internalizing these externalities and bringing ourselves to a
level playing field. A fee on virgin plastics does not mean it
refers to single-use plastics. I think there is a logical way
to do that. There are countless tools that we can use, but the
reality is that we need to be doing something to level the
playing field.
Senator Whitehouse. Take a look at the REDUCE Act and get
back to us with any comments or thoughts you might have, if you
do not mind.
Ms. Meng. Absolutely.
Senator Whitehouse. Terrific. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this. Again, I think
a lot of American corporations have developed a partial market
economy business model as to free market when it comes to their
pricing and selling their product but passing on to the public
and socializing the externalities that they may cause, that
just is not market theory. The selective use of market theory
has caused a lot of harm whether in carbon emissions, plastic
waste or across the board. Thank you for continuing your focus
in this area.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. We are looking
forward to Save Our Seas.
Senator Whitehouse. Save Our Seas 3.0.
Senator Merkley. Save Our Seas 3.0, with bipartisan
collaboration. I know those of us who live on the coast, you
are doing that with Senator Sullivan, right? I know we hear a
lot about Alaska's concerns about the Pacific gyre and the
amount of plastic waste that washes up.
Senator Whitehouse. We pick it up on our shores with
garbage bags. They have to pick that up on their shores with
front-end loaders and dumpsters because of the Pacific flow of
plastic waste.
Senator Merkley. Absolutely. Thank you.
I think it is an interesting point about the economics
involved. My impression, going back to when Oregon first
implemented recycling of bottles, and all the bottles were
glass, is that those who delivered the product were happy to
have the bottles washed and reused because it was cheaper than
buying new bottles because it takes a lot of energy to create a
glass bottle melting.
It was the folks who made the bottles who, at that point,
were extremely resistant because obviously they would sell less
bottles if the existing bottles were reused.
With plastics, the economics often are different in that it
can be cheaper, as my colleague pointed out, to make a new one
than to recycle an existing piece. It is the externalities of
the impact of that plastic downstream that are not taken into
account.
I wanted to ask you, Ms. Meng, as the Foundation has worked
with partners to implement larger scale reuse and refill, are
there like a top three, here are the biggest obstacles you have
encountered?
Ms. Meng. That is an excellent question. I will look to the
rest of the panel also for their experience.
I do think that the challenge we see from folks, is we have
had businesses asking for a level playing field, because the
need for shared infrastructure at scale, kind of standardized
infrastructure, is crucial.
In an individual company, it is a real challenge to build
out that infrastructure to establish sufficient collection
points or access points for consumers. They are looking for
policy intervention to really help bring folks together to
collaborate to get the shared infrastructure at scale but they
need to make it work economically. I think that is the big
challenge we are hearing.
Senator Merkley. At scale it just gets a lot cheaper.
Ms. Meng. Absolutely.
Senator Merkley. Ms. Schmid, as we think about plastic
bottles being reused, is there a consumer challenge? Consumers
get very used, they want their oranges to look orange and their
apples with no bruises. They are kind of used to that kind of
perfect product on the shelf.
Do we find with reused plastic bottles that consumers go,
why does this bottle have scratches on it? Are consumers
accepting and are the manufacturers happy with the consumer
response of reused plastic bottles?
Ms. Schmid. Thank you for the question.
Reusable packagings are going to rotate several times. That
is something, from our own experience, we are seeing consumers
really willing to accept. It is also in the hands of the
manufacturer to design the right durable package that is
meeting their consumer needs.
Then we have a whole industry that has very strong
experience in designing product and packaging that delights
consumers on a daily basis. I am fully confident, based on the
work we have seen already on the platform to date, we are able
to deliver against those needs.
Senator Merkley. Let me ask you the same question I asked
Ms. Meng. As you work on this project, what are the top three
challenges you are encountering?
Ms. Schmid. I would say there is only one challenge. The
challenge is scale. We talked about it previously in talking
about labor costs. Costs will be viable once there are
sufficient units to flow through the system.
What is required is really a system that is competitive
versus single-use, also in the number of units that flow
through the system.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Mr. Debus, I was picturing these plastic pallets. I am more
familiar with wooden pallets. I am also familiar with how those
wooden pallets break apart, degrade and so forth. Are the
plastic pallets a more durable product? Is that part of why
they have found acceptance?
Mr. Debus. They can be, for sure. Many of them are designed
to last for many years and hundreds of uses. There could be
some durability properties that plastic pallets offer that wood
does not.
We are seeing some great advancements, though, in wood
pallet suppliers performing reuse capabilities such as offering
inventory management programs and working directly with
customers on a managed pool of wood products and wood pallets.
They can take back, repair and put them in place.
We are seeing some reuse models even get into the wood
pallet industry as well. Several of our members are wood pallet
supplier and pooler companies.
Senator Merkley. I have so many additional questions but I
am out of time. I have another hearing that has just started.
Our chair of Environment and Public Works has arrived. I am
going to turn the hearing over to you. If you like, continue to
go as long as you want.
The hearing is yours. If you do not mind, I will leave.
Chairman Carper.
[Presiding.] Do the Lord's work. When I finish my
questions, should I gavel out?
Senator Merkley. Yes.
Chairman Carper. Ms. Meng, how are you?
Ms. Meng. Doing well, thank you.
Chairman Carper. It is nice to see you.
Sometimes we hear from critics of the circular economy
movement that our reliance on plastic and other single-use
items has become so ubiquitous that the only policy solution is
to improve our ability to recycle these products.
While this is certainly one element of achieving
circularity, it overlooks two of the most important tools in
our toolbox. One of those is reduction and the other is reuse.
I believe that achieving circularity in our economy hinges
upon our taking an all-of-the-above approach when addressing
consumption and waste management practices. I am inspired by
the role that reuse and refill infrastructure could play, can
play in that transition.
My question for you, ma'am, would be why is it important to
consider policy options beyond just recycling as we work to
create circularity within our economy? The second half of my
question is, can you share an example with us of a reuse policy
that has been effective in reducing overall waste? Do you want
me to repeat those questions?
Ms. Meng. No, I have notes, excellent questions, and I am
glad to answer them.
On the question of why we need to be looking beyond
recycling, we see that kind of recycling is inadequate, both in
practice and in theory. There is not enough that we can do with
recycling due to products that are not easy to recycle like
flexible packaging, and actual systems in place that are not
meeting our needs with recycling. We have to look beyond
recycling for solutions.
Frankly, some of the solutions outside of recycling are
more appropriate for different types of products, are more
suited to the products. Looking upstream is what EMF thinks is
critical to meeting the challenges we face.
When we think about looking upstream, we see the great
opportunity that is there. We see if you replace 20 percent of
plastic packaging with reusable packaging, it is a $10 billion
opportunity. If you replace 10 percent of the plastic packaging
on the market, you can keep 50 percent of plastics out of the
ocean annually.
There is a huge opportunity both economically and
environmentally. We need to be aware of all our options when
thinking about tackling those challenges.
On your question about whether there are reuse policies
that we can point to----
Senator Carper. A good example or two, if you will, on
reduction or reuse policy.
Ms. Meng. Reuse policy that is effective, we have a number
of policies that are in the early stages that are really great
on reuse that we are really excited about like reuse targets
that we are seeing currently negotiated in the EU up and
running in France in the near term.
When we think about what we have seen proven time and time
again, I think bottle bills are a classic example that we look
to across the U.S. States that we have seen really do drive
return rates. If we are incorporating reuse into those systems,
we are in a position to be getting packaging back to be reused
very efficiently and effectively.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Clemence, who are you named after?
Ms. Schmid. It is a French name.
Senator Carper. I thought so. Bienvenue, welcome.
Ms. Schmid, you mentioned in your testimony that the United
Nations views reuse, and I think this is a quote, ``the most
scalable solution to reduce plastic waste at its sources.''
How has Loop been able to partner with other businesses
such as Walmart in order to promote reusable packaging? Hat is
one question. A followup would be, how can the Federal
Government work alongside the private sector companies to scale
reuse and refill infrastructure and technology?
Ms. Schmid. Thank you, Senator Carper, for the questions.
Loop works with brand manufacturers and retailers to
transition from a disposable system into a reusable system in
the least disruptive way. It is really about handling for that
supply chain the reverse logistic in a way that disrupts the
existing and very efficient supply chain in the least possible
way, working with, you named them, Walmart but also over 200
brand manufacturers including Proctor and Gamble and Nestle.
We are develop reusable packages that are being enjoyed by
consumers. Upon return, Loop is collecting them back, sorting,
storing and cleaning them. We also reimburse the deposit.
Senator Carper. How do you collect them back?
Ms. Schmid. We collect back them from the store where they
are being currently returned by consumers or any other location
that has a Loop return point.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Ms. Schmid. Do you want me to address the question on the
economics?
Senator Carper. Please, if you would.
Ms. Schmid. What is really important in the Loop system is
that the package is an asset to the brand manufacturer as
opposed to the cost of goods sold. In making the package an
asset, you enable the manufacturer to innovate and create a
fundamentally better package and a better consumer experience.
This is what, as a brand manufacturer or producer, you are
really striving to be able to delight consumers. That is what
they are able to do much better on a reusable package than on a
single-use package.
Senator Carper. Any idea where that idea came from? That is
a very clever idea.
Ms. Schmid. The idea for a reusable package?
Senator Carper. Yes. Has that been around for a while?
Ms. Schmid. I do not think that is a new idea. I think we
call it the milkman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. When I was in grade school, my colleagues
and I were out on the playground playing. The other kids
started talking about who they were named after. They asked who
I was named after and I didn't know.
That night when I went home, at supper, I said to my dad,
who am I named after? We do not have any Toms in our family. He
said speak to the milkman. He said, son, you are named after
the milkman. That was when we actually had milkmen. We had a
milkman named Tom. We moved a lot then but we always had the
same milkman, so who knows. I like milk, I know that.
Ms. Schmid. I will ask if our milkman was named Tom also.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Clemence, I have another question if you do
not mind, dealing with lessons learned. I often like to say in
life we need to find out what works and do more of that. For
recycling, we often look to our State or local initiatives that
are successfully promoting circularity.
My home State of Delaware recently passed a law that would
ban food establishments from using single-use, polystyrene
containers and other plastic items like coffee stirrers. While
we are still waiting for our Governor to sign this bill into
law, I look forward to the lessons that we gain from this
Delaware law and similar legislation.
I also believe we can learn from the international
community, from countries beyond our borders, including France,
about successful reuse and refill policies.
My next question of you, Mademoiselle, is having worked to
launch Loop globally across three continents, is that right,
what lessons can we learn from the international community as
well as from States and municipalities, when it comes to
reusable or refillable products and infrastructure?
Ms. Schmid. Thank you for this very important question.
The first learning is there is a market demand for reuse.
Consumers are ready and are already experiencing it in many
sectors. There is a need to scale and we see this across all
the markets.
The second learning I would bring to the committee, as you
rightly pointed out, is some countries have already taken the
forefront of working policies together with the business in
order to foster and propel reuse.
In my home country of France, which is clearly leading the
way, and also in Europe, we have seen reuse targets and reuse
mandates coming through legislation which have fostered the
creation of the reverse infrastructure and we are seeing the
market developing extremely fast.
I would summarize in making sure this government passes
legislation to support reuse.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Debus, what are some of the lessons learned from your
work at the Reusable Packaging Association that might help us
achieve a more circular economy? How can we encourage other
industries to pursue policies like incorporating reusable
shipping supplies which are both good for business and I think
are good for the environment?
Mr. Debus. Very much so. Thank you.
The biggest lesson in seeing reusable systems in action is
that they create tremendous opportunity and value within the
supply chain infrastructures and the participating parties.
There is a lot of discovery that takes place.
When you are incorporating a reusable packaging system, you
have to know every step of the way where that package is being
handled. That opens the eyes for a lot of businesses to see
other improvement areas that can take place, whether it is in
their shipping or the warehouse, whether it is in the stores
and stocking merchandise for a point-of-sale.
There are a lot of opportunities that come up with reusable
packaging that people discover and it becomes an ``aha'' moment
of wait, if we can do this, then this leads to other benefits.
That is the biggest takeaway that I have seen, especially
being in the field, that reuse breeds a level of performance
that companies do not turn away from once they establish that
system. They do not go back to a single-use model because they
are generating benefits throughout the whole system. They are
saving money and providing a better experience for those
handling the items. There is not a lot of turning back.
I think as far as cultivating reuse systems, as I mentioned
earlier, it is an investment so how can policy help with
investments for the return, the payback that takes place maybe
a year or two down the line?
A lot of our companies are looking at the immediate
reporting, second quarter and how do we achieve efficiencies
today. Sometimes that investment in reuse can take a year or
two for the payback or return. Anything now, whether tax
breaks, or grants, or things that can help generate the
financial investment in reuse models would be very valuable.
Senator Carper. One last question for Dacie Meng. I believe
the reuse and refill infrastructure presents a promising
alternative to single-use plastics. My guess is you do too.
In the Environmental Protection Agency's draft strategy to
address plastic pollution, the agency describes how the Federal
Government should use its power of acquisition and procurement
to promote sustainable supply chains for materials that are
used in Federal buildings.
Ms. Meng, do you believe that our Federal Government could
successfully implement reuse and refill infrastructure in some
of our Federal buildings? What are some of the best examples of
single-use products that could be replaced by reuse and refill
infrastructure?
Ms. Meng. That is a wonderful question. Thank you. The
EPA's Plastics Strategy is a really exciting development. I
think this is a key piece of the work we need to be doing on
reuse.
I will point you first to GSA which has an advisory
committee that published a kind of road map exactly on this
topic for different pilots than can be conducted both by
procurement officers and facility-specific pilots.
When we think about what are some of the actions the
Federal Government can take and what products can be
transitioned to reuse, the obvious ideas are drinking fountains
as a replacement, building the infrastructure for reusable
water or water bottles.
Then we can look to the food service areas such as
cafeterias and other things that may be replaced with reusable
food ware, if that is not already in place.
I will continue to think on that and get back to you with a
few additional ideas.
Senator Carper. Good. You may have a chance to do that. We
are going to be submitting questions to each of you from our
colleagues who are not here and some who are here. We call them
questions for the record, or QFRs.
We will ask that Senators to submit the questions for the
record through close of business on Thursday, August 10th. We
will compile those questions and send them to you and ask you
to reply to us by Thursday, August 24th.
In closing, let me thank you all. Merci beaucoup. I thank
each of you for appearing today and your testimony, but really
for what you do with your lives. I hope your work provides you
with great satisfaction. Mine certainly does for me.
As a point of clarification, Senators will be allowed to
submit questions for the record through the close of business
on Thursday, August 10th. Again, we will ask you all to respond
by Thursday, August 24th.
I do not know how they say this in French but we have a
saying here that when something is over, we say, that is a
wrap. We are grateful to all of you.
One of my favorite people, favorite leaders, if you will,
from other countries is the leader of France. President and
Mrs. Biden hosted a State Dinner for French President Macron
about a year or two ago. I had the opportunity to chat with him
a bit there.
He had spoken to a joint session of the Congress about 2
years ago. I got to shake hands with him and chat with him
briefly before he spoke. In his address that day to the joint
session of Congress, he said these words, ``This is the only
planet we are going to have. There is no planet B. This is the
only one.''
I told him at the State dinner that I have quoted him many
times in saying that. I have never given him credit for the
quote. He said, ``We have a special name in France for people
like you who steal our material without attribution.'' We had a
good laugh.
Keep up the good work. You are doing great things for our
planet, the only one we are going to have. Take care.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]