7
Interventions for U.S. Contributions to Global Ocean Plastic Waste
The last component of the statement of task is to “recommend potential means to reduce United States contributions to global ocean plastic waste.” In considering interventions for the United States, several themes emerge from expert advice on ocean plastic waste:
The need and ability to act without perfect knowledge. Government-led expert reports and scientific assessments from the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), Canada, the United Kingdom, Nordic countries, and U.S. states (e.g., California) advise precautionary and immediate action, from source reduction to reuse—even with existing uncertainties—while concurrently addressing key knowledge gaps (Brander et al. 2021, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada 2020, HM Government 2018).
The need for a systemic approach involving actions across multiple institutions. Expert reports from the UN (Cornago, Börkey, and Brown 2021, IRP 2021) and nongovernmental organizations (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017, Lau et al. 2020, World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and McKinsey & Company 2016) articulate the need for an integrated range of strategic interventions and advocate enforceable legal requirements and investments around waste prevention and management, product standards, and multisector commitments to reduce sources of plastic waste. Governments are aligning with “all of the above” principles and engaging in multisector collaborations for unified, systemic change.
The need for government and industry standards, goals, criteria, and rules to advance action. There is growing recognition that government goals, standards, and regulations are needed to enable coordinated action with industry and civil society to reduce plastic waste flows to the ocean. Although addressing plastic pollution in the ocean requires cooperation from a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., producers, retailers, consumers, researchers), the core regulatory powers of governments are needed for effective solutions (Karasik et al. 2020). Voluntary pledges and commitments alone have been insufficient to manage ocean plastic waste (Borrelle et al. 2020, Cornago, Börkey, and Brown 2021, Lau et al. 2020)—as with many transboundary waste and pollution issues, such as wastewaters degrading basinwide water quality, greenhouse gases causing climate change, air contaminants generating acid rain, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) depleting ozone. A coordinated effort across relevant stages and scales (local, national, and global) is needed to tackle plastic pollution.
The need and opportunity to deploy economic instruments (e.g., the use of taxes and subsidies and extended user responsibilities) and behavioral interventions (e.g., promoting the voluntary adoption of pro-environment behavior in societies through non-price and non-regulatory means) to incentivize the most environmentally benign use, recycling, and disposal of plastics and plastic waste (see, e.g., Cornago, Börkey, and Brown 2021).
The opportunities for co-benefits from addressing ocean plastic waste. Reducing plastic waste provides parallel social and environmental benefits for important U.S. priorities, such as equity and environmental justice, climate change emission reduction, sustainable economic growth, and cost reduction (CIEL 2019, Ford et al. 2022, U.S. Department of Energy 2021, UNEP 2021b, World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and McKinsey & Company 2016, Zheng and Suh 2019).
Recommendation 4: The United States should create a coherent, comprehensive, and crosscutting federal research and policy strategy that focuses on identifying, implementing, and assessing equitable and effective interventions across the entire plastic life cycle to reduce U.S. contribution of plastic waste to the environment, including the ocean. This strategy should be developed at a high level with a group of experts (or external advisory body) by December 31, 2022, and its implementation assessed by December 31, 2025. Such a strategy would enhance U.S. leadership in creating solutions to global plastic pollution and shaping modern industrial plastic policy.
KEY FRAMEWORKS AND IMPLEMENTATION
No single solution can greatly reduce the flow of plastic waste to the ocean. However, a suite of actions (or “interventions”) across all stages of plastics’ paths from sources to the ocean could reduce ocean plastic wastes and achieve environmental and social benefits (IRP 2021). Actions to reduce ocean plastic waste at each stage have different effectiveness and costs but together constitute a regional, national, or global strategy for managing plastic wastes in the ocean and the environment (UNEP 2021a). A policy challenge is to organize and implement a portfolio of interventions along this chain of plastic use and management to reduce or eliminate plastic wastes entering the ocean, considering both benefits and costs.
Plastic waste reaching the ocean can be reduced through a range of interventions across the life cycle of plastic waste, from the plastic waste sources to management and release to the ocean (Figure 7.1). Systemic actions in each of these six stages across the plastic life cycle are needed to avoid the current mismatch between (1) sources and production of plastic products and (2) the waste and management systems charged with waste (OECD 2018).
This chapter reviews interventions available and some examples employed to date to prevent and reduce plastic waste from entering the ocean. Interventions managed within a systemic approach can improve outcomes beyond individual interventions.
To reduce plastic waste generation (Stage 3), interventions will be required at the production, material, and product design stages (Stages 1 and 2). These interventions require widespread change in industry standards and practices to make more efficient and equitable use of government and other resources downstream (UNEP 2021a). The federal
government has a clear opportunity with industry to set goals and requirements to reduce plastic flows from upstream and has laid out some potential innovation paths—for example, the U.S. Department of Energy (2021) Plastics Innovation Challenge Roadmap. At the end of this chapter, Table 7.1 identifies diverse examples for each intervention stage below.
1. Reduce Plastic Production. This is the first stage where plastic waste can be affected, by reducing the amount of plastics produced to decrease needs for waste stream management. Of particular interest is reducing production of plastics that are not reusable or practically recyclable.
2. Innovate Design and Materials. In this stage, materials and product design innovation can develop substitutes that biodegrade more quickly or are more easily recycled and support use of more reusable products. Furthermore, product design can be changed for items more likely to become waste and leak into the environment through the use of green engineering (Abraham and Nguyen 2003, Anastas and Zimmerman 2003) and green chemistry (Anastas and Warner 1998, Chen et al. 2020, Coish et al. 2018) principles.
3. Decrease Waste Generation. Actions in this stage reduce unnecessary plastic wastes, by reducing use of plastic products with short disposable use periods, such as some single-use applications. Such interventions can include product limits and targets for recycling and reuse.
4. Improve Waste Management. Actions in this stage improve solid and other waste infrastructure, collection, treatment, and management, including leakage control and accounting. This can include efforts to increase collection of plastics into waste management systems, plastic recycling, and isolation or treatment of remaining plastic wastes to avoid leakage into the environment.
5. Capture Waste. Improving waste capture from the environment before or after waste enters the ocean is another class of intervention. This can include re-capturing wastes from ground litter, stormwater, or directly from waters where it accumulates, such as during river or beach cleanups or using retention booms (Figure 7.2). This class of interventions tends to be expensive but is highly visible and often has the most focus.
Environmental capture is sometimes done after plastic wastes enter the open ocean. This strategy is very expensive, inefficient, and impractical because of the vast areas over which waste is dispersed, especially plastic waste that has fragmented over time into very small and widely distributed microplastics.
6. Minimize at-Sea Disposal. This category reduces plastic waste discharge into the ocean directly from vessels, point sources, or platforms and includes actions under specific laws and treaties regarding ocean pollution.
Successful implementation of this suite of interventions will require focused resources and funding, as well as attendant monitoring and assessment (as described in Chapter 6), research and development, and public outreach and transparency initiatives (see examples at end of Table 7.1) (Cornago, Börkey, and Brown 2021, UNEP 2021a).
Assessing Interventions—Scale and Cost-Effectiveness
The mix of interventions and actions available to reduce ocean plastic waste constitutes a portfolio within an overall system. If each ocean plastic intervention is managed well, a portfolio of actions will maximize reduction of plastic waste in the ocean for any level of overall cost (IRP 2021). Addressing only one or several categories of interventions without substantially addressing all will reduce overall effectiveness in plastic reduction to the ocean (Biron 2020, Cornago, Börkey, and Brown 2021, Lau et al. 2020).
Actions by larger organizations with the ability to finance, organize, and implement change (e.g., governments and industries) are more likely to have economies of scale in cost and in technical attention to focus on the underlying systems (IRP 2021).
The range of interventions to reduce ocean plastic wastes varies in effectiveness and cost relative to benefits for affected communities and environments. System analysis can help in crafting national, state, and local portfolios of actions, which are more cost-effective and usefully inform policy formulations and discussions.
Participants and Roles
The ubiquity of plastics in the economy and environment is mirrored by the diverse range of institutions and interests involved in the plastic value chain, from plastic production to product manufacture and distribution, disposal, leakage, collection, and recovery or disposal of plastic waste. It is critical to assign roles and responsibilities to those best positioned to address and solve the problem (UNEP 2021a). Multiple interests often need to collaborate for an individual intervention or portfolio of interventions to succeed.
Private-sector groups include raw material feedstock producers; plastic resin producers; plastic processors; designers and creators of plastic products; companies that use plastics in consumer products; and retailers, packagers, and distributors of those products to users ranging from the public to governments. The final stage of the plastic value chain rests with those involved in regulating, financing, and operating systems to control pollution and manage the collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of plastic wastes. These include landfills, recycling, composting, and incineration facilities as well as facilities to capture and contain leakage to the environment, such as wastewater treatment plants. Governments often take these roles, with private firms carrying out many of these responsibilities.
Private companies have mostly commercial and economic interests in producing and consuming or using plastics and plastic goods, in
making plastic material and product design decisions, or in collecting and disposing of plastic wastes. Production and manufacturing firms could intervene in early stages of the value chain and use circular economy principles to reduce the creation of plastic waste in the first instance. They can define clear paths for plastics to end-of-life recovery or management, using green chemistry and green engineering principles (Abraham and Nguyen 2003, Anastas and Zimmerman 2003, Law and Narayan 2022, Zimmerman et al. 2020). These principles can be integrated into products, feedstocks, and manufacturing under expanded definitions of performance that include sustainability (Zimmerman et al. 2020). Such approaches would bring polymer scientists, product designers, environmental engineers, and waste professionals together to design materials and products that reduce the likelihood of leakage and pollution by incentivizing their recovery to retain value and feedstock for future uses (Law and Narayan 2022).
Federal, state, and local governments organize and oversee waste and pollution control operations and infrastructure that are increasingly burdened by plastic waste. U.S. environmental law delegates most of these roles to state and local governments under “cooperative federalism.” (Ternes and Fulton 20201 and see Appendix C). As currently designed, these systems reduce some externalities but still allow substantial plastic leakage as outlined in Chapters 3 and 4. These include solid waste collection and management systems (including litter collection, landfills, and recycling and composting facilities) as well as treatment and monitoring systems. These are supported by a range of fees and taxes largely at state and local levels, although the federal government funds some infrastructure and targeted prevention and cleanup programs.
National and state governments have critical organizing and motivating roles beyond waste management at all stages, including scientific assessment, monitoring and evaluation, goal and priority setting, expert and cross-sector initiatives, financial incentives, and resources to support change, as well as laws and policies that guide actions by the private sector (Coe, Antonelis, and Moy 2019, UNEP 2021a). Key federal government actors include (1) Congress, which provides statutory authority and fiscal resources; (2) the Executive Branch, which implements statutes and creates executive orders that can stimulate change within the federal system, itself a major consumer; and (3) the Judiciary Branch, which interprets law or gives effect to federal decisions (Ternes and Fulton 2020).
Cost of payment for managing plastic wastes in the environment tends to vary along plastics’ paths to the ocean. Each action and its
___________________
1 This citation was modified after release of a pre-publication version of the report.
costs affect different consumer and producer groups, as well as different local, regional, and national communities and governments. The current disconnect between plastic formulation and product design and end-of-life management creates significant negative externalities when plastic waste “leakage” creates ocean pollution and inequitable impacts (UNEP 2021b). Consumers, communities, and nongovernmental actors, including philanthropy, are not positioned or resourced to change plastic production and waste management, although they can and do catalyze multisector collaborations, raise awareness, support transparency and equity, and advocate for governmental and private-sector changes. They can also participate in cross-sector partnerships to advance innovation and solutions with government and private firms.
STRATEGIES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES/REGIONS
At the global level, national actions on plastic policy before 2018 focused on interventions largely involving specific plastic products, described in Box 7.1. In 2020, in response to a range of international actions, including UN resolutions regarding plastic pollution, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) issued guidance to assist nations in prioritizing actions to reduce plastic pollution with a more systemic approach, based on a practical understanding of sources of pollution, then matching prioritized “hotspots” (based on data) with appropriate interventions (UNEP 2020). By then, a growing number of G7 and G20 countries had already initiated national “systemic” plans and pressed for coordinated plastic strategies and commitments (see Appendix E). These included the EU (and the United Kingdom), Canada, and China. In October 2021, UNEP released Global Assessment of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution to inform discussions on additional national and international actions (UNEP 2021a).
Although the United States has a range of laws and policies regarding marine debris and plastic waste (see Chapter 3, Appendix C, and Appendix E), the country has not moved to adopt a national system-wide strategy for reducing plastic waste. The United States did not join Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the EU and numerous nongovernmental groups in signing the 2018 G7 “Plastics Charter,” committing to (1) attaining 100% reusable, recyclable, and recoverable plastics by 2030; (2) increasing the recycled content of plastic products to at least 50% by 2030; and (3) recycling and reusing at least 55% of plastic packaging by 2030 and recovering 100% of all plastics by 2040. These commitments underpin the national plastic strategies issued by the EU, United Kingdom, and Canada, described below. In 2019 the United States joined all G20 nations in a voluntary commitment to “reduce additional
pollution by marine plastic litter to zero by 2050 through a comprehensive life-cycle approach” but has not yet proposed specific measures to achieve this (G20 2021).
European Union
Recognizing the importance of plastic products to the economy of the EU and the world at large, and plastic pollution’s serious harms to the environment and human health, the EU is acting to reduce plastic pollution.
The EU’s policy on plastics is embedded in its circular economy plan (European Commission 2021). It intends to transform how plastic products are designed, produced, used, and recycled in the EU, guided by specific rules and targets (European Environment Agency 2021). Some key directions in the EU plastic strategy are (1) improving the economics and quality of recycling by instituting “new rules on packaging to improve the recyclability of plastics and increase demand for recycled plastic content”; (2) curbing plastic waste through a directive banning some single-use products, reducing others, and improving collection and reporting of fishing gear (including through extended producer responsibility [EPR] schemes), as well as rules that restrict use of microplastics in products; (3) driving innovation and investment by increasing financial support, “with an additional €100 million to develop smarter and more recyclable plastics materials”; and (4) working with EU’s international partners to “devise global solutions and international standards on plastics.”2
On marine plastic pollution, Arroyo Schnell et al. (2017) classify the EU’s marine plastic pollution policies into three categories:
- Plastic production and use impacting the ocean. Relevant policies involve bans or taxes on plastic items and rely on EU Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and associated waste and its amendment in 2015 (2015/720).
- Plastic waste disposal entering the ocean. Several EU member countries have highlighted their implementation of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Convention 73/78. Annex V, in particular, deals with the control and prevention of pollution from garbage from plastic waste and other solid wastes.
___________________
2 See https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/plastics-strategy_en.
- Plastic waste already in the ocean. There are policies to reduce the amount of waste already present in the marine environment, including research, monitoring, and cleanup activities.
As a signatory to the Basel Convention, on January 1, 2021, the EU also implemented “new rules banning the export of plastic waste from the EU to non-[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] OECD countries, except for clean plastic waste sent for recycling. Exporting plastic waste from the EU to OECD countries and imports into the EU will
also be more strictly controlled.”3 The strategy also provides for periodic evaluation of effectiveness, with some early reports of improvement in recycling of packaging (Hockenos 2021).
Canada
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste (CCME 2019, 2020), adopted in 2018, requires actions along the life cycle of plastics to increase their recovery in the economy. These actions are focused on product design, collection systems, single-use plastics, recycling capacity, and domestic markets for recycled material. This Canada-wide Action Plan on Zero Plastic Waste also includes a Canada-wide Action Plan on Extended Producer Responsibility. On June 9, 2018, Canada also joined France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the EU in signing the Ocean Plastics Charter. The Charter’s goals include working with industry toward 100% reusable, recyclable, and recoverable plastics by 2030, collaborating with industry and other levels of government to recover 100% of all plastics by 2040.
The Canadian Government has publicly stated that it plans to ban some single-use plastic products, but currently no such legislative bans exist at the federal level. However, a few municipalities are leading the effort on single-use plastic bans. Canada recently adopted a range of legislation and policy statements that will lead to a country-wide ban on single-use plastics by the end of 2021. Six items have been identified for the ban: plastic straws, plastic checkout bags, stir sticks, cutlery, six-pack rings, and foodware made from hard-to-recycle plastics.
Concerning international trade in plastic waste, Canada is a signatory to the Basel Convention, which controls international shipments of most plastic scrap, waste, and waste destined for recycling or disposal (Hagen, LaMotte, and Meng 2021, U.S. EPA 2021j). Canada implements the Basel Convention through the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations.
China
In addition to banning plastic waste imports in 2018, China issued national policies on plastic pollution (NDRC and MEE 2020). At the start of 2020, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) issued the “Opinions on Further Strengthening the Treatment of Plastic Pollution,” which proposed objectives and tasks to phase out certain plastics by 2025 to
___________________
3 See https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-shipments/plastic-waste-shipments_en.
control plastic pollution (China Government Network 2021). Sequentially, they issued “Notice on Further Strengthening Recent Work of Plastic Pollution Control” and “Notice on Solid Promotion of Plastic Pollution Control” to support their plastic pollution objectives (Guangdong Provincial Development and Reform Commission 2020).
China’s guiding principles are to focus on key areas in an “orderly manner,” lead through scientific and technological innovation, and foster co-governance (comprising the government, businesses, industry organizations, and the public). China has set goals for 2020, 2022, and 2025 (NDRC and MEE 2020). China’s 2020 goal was to become a leader in banning and restricting the “production, sales, and use of some plastic products in some regions and areas.” China’s 2022 goal is to significantly decrease use of single-use plastic products, promote product substitutes, and increase the proportion of plastic recycled. By 2025, the national objective is to establish a “multi-element” co-governance system along with a management system to address the entire life cycle of plastics, from production to waste. China plans for substitutes for plastic products to be further developed and ready for market, to significantly reduce plastic waste destined for landfills, and to decrease plastic pollution (NDRC and MEE 2020).
In 2008, China attempted to ban ultra-thin plastic bags. The impact was minimal, however, due to insufficient local implementation. Now, China intends to implement and enforce its regulatory measures at the provincial level (Logofet 2021). The NDRC and the MEE recognize that conditions differ in different regions and have stated that local governments should assess local conditions to develop actions and policies for their regions (NDRC and MEE 2020). The central government has requested that provincial governments submit their plans on how to effectively employ the directives for the conditions in their regions (Logofet 2021).
U.S. Federal Action to Date
The United States Federal Strategy for Addressing the Global Issue of Marine Litter, released in October 2020, reflected work as of that date under three main U.S. legal authorities: Marine Debris Act, as amended by the Save our Seas Act of 2018; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and Clean Water Act (U.S. EPA, 2020c). It also describes international actions in coordination with other nations under laws on pollution from ships and other ocean activities.
In its September 2021 report to the G20, the United States confirmed that while “it does not have a national action plan specific to marine plastic litter,” existing federal laws provide “a comprehensive legal framework to address marine plastic litter,” listing, in addition to the three authorities specified in the 2020 Strategy, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, the Microbead Free Waters Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act (Ministry of Environment, Japan 2021). The 2020 Strategy (U.S. EPA 2020c) and 2021 G20 update confirm that efforts within the United States have focused largely on litter and debris removal, outreach, and monitoring activities, with water pollution and solid waste management and reduction programs delegated to states and local governments.
The U.S. submissions did not include elements adopted by some of the G7 and G20 countries, such as a plan for a national life cycle of plastics intervention strategy or recommend legal, policy, or other changes to reduce production and use of problematic plastics and plastic products as detailed in the previous section. Interventions earlier in the plastic life cycle will be needed to equitably distribute costs and enable interventions to be more effective and cost-efficient (OECD 2018). The only ban on plastic production enacted at the federal level is the congressionally enacted 2015 prohibition on the use and manufacture of rinse-off cosmetic products containing plastic microbeads.
At the same time, states and local jurisdictions have been operating as “policy laboratories” for interventions that have worked elsewhere (Karasik et al. 2020). The need to stem plastic pollution to communities and overburdened waste systems has led some states and local jurisdictions to test new policy tools. Given limited resources and growing public support, states, cities, and municipalities are enacting bans or limits on products (e.g., bags, utensils, and packaging) commonly found in the environment (Karasik et al. 2020). Some states have adopted comprehensive statewide plastic strategies, such as California’s 2018 Marine Litter Strategy (co-developed with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]), set for additional updates in 2022 (California Ocean Protection Council and NOAA Marine Debris Program 2018, Wyer 2021). States and local jurisdictions also are adopting policies to redirect recycling and waste management cost from the public sector to producers and generators of plastic and packaging waste. These include EPR laws (e.g., Maine, Oregon) (Martins 2021) and other state policies for various waste types, as noted in Table 7.1 and Appendix C.
A U.S. APPROACH ON PLASTICS
Recent congressional action and federal agency activities, as well as actions adopted by state and local governments, illustrate increasing interest in a more systemic and unified approach to this problem, leading toward a global solution (Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, Reports from NOAA, G20 statements and G7 statement of ministers). The range of federal agencies, programs, and existing legal authorities (illustrated in Appendix C) could be a foundation for an updated U.S. strategy.
As noted, the United States has not yet adopted a systemic federal approach to all six stages of interventions, from production to disposal,
though the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act included measures to support research, global cooperation, and infrastructure.4 Most federal interventions and marine debris strategies within the United States have focused on Stages 3–5, cleanup and local waste management (U.S. EPA, 2020c; Appendixes C and E), which cannot stem leakage to the environment because of the large volume of flow relative to available resources. To reduce U.S. plastic waste generation, interventions will be required in production, material, and product design stages (Stages 1–2). These interventions require widespread changes in industry standards and practices to make the most efficient and equitable use of government and other resources downstream. The federal government has a clear opportunity, along with industry, to set goals and requirements to reduce flows of plastic waste from these upstream stages and has laid out some potential innovation pathways for reducing plastic waste.
NOAA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) are two federal agencies with relevant legal authorities and significant expertise in plastic pollution, environmental conservation and protection, and waste management. NOAA’s Marine Debris Program was formed when most attention was directed toward plastic and other waste in the ocean and on shorelines from marine-based sources and focused attention on abandoned and lost fishing gear as well as ship-based plastic waste (National Research Council 2009, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 2004), but the program has been strengthened multiple times to address new challenges and improve the following: government coordination, including around enforcement of existing laws; public outreach and education; partnerships; monitoring and identification; and research. NOAA has also been a leader internationally, having hosted or co-hosted six International Marine Debris Conferences, including in Hawaii (1984) and San Diego, California (2018). These meetings were an important forum for marine debris researchers, managers, policy makers, and others interested in marine debris. The United States and the Republic of Korea have announced plans for a seventh International Marine Debris Conference in Busan, Republic of Korea in September 2022.
NOAA has made progress on these efforts, building scientific and operational expertise, widespread trust, and strong partnerships within existing resources and authorities. This role as a trusted science-based leader and partner on the problem is essential to the success of any federal effort. In addition, NOAA leads the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee (IMDCC), under which it coordinates with many federal agencies with programs and resources to bear on the plastic waste problem.
Reducing land-based sources of waste and pollution that enter the U.S. environment, including federal inland and offshore waters, is assigned to
___________________
4 See https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1982/text.
U.S. EPA, with roles for NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other agencies (Appendix C). As described in Chapter 3, U.S. EPA’s existing environmental authorities, while broad, operate within a federal and state regulatory context. Their water and air pollution prevention and solid and hazardous waste management authorities, largely implemented at local and state levels, are grounded in a historical focus on hazardous waste and chemical pollutants and are not specifically designed to address plastic waste problems. However, U.S. EPA’s expertise on strategies for pollution and waste control and human and environmental health risk reduction give the agency a strong opportunity to use its experience in designing critical interventions.
Although the United States is strong in solid waste management compared to other countries, plastic solid waste is primarily landfilled despite major efficiencies and benefits to be gained by interventions in Stages 1–3 to reduce plastic waste and divert plastic waste to other managed fates (recycling, composting, reuse). It will be important to use a range of federal interventions across Stages 1–6 to reduce plastic waste “leakage” into the environment and ocean. The talent of federal agencies and many others will be needed to address gaps in plastic waste source reduction and building the infrastructure and systems to support plastic reduction, reuse, recycling, or composting (see Appendix C).
This report does not review the state of knowledge on impacts of plastic waste to humans and the environment, but such an assessment could be an important part of developing a national strategy to inform necessary and priority actions across intervention stages. For example, the United States could consider whether it is appropriate to regulate plastic waste as a pollutant or hazardous material based on such an assessment.
Finally, the federal research and monitoring enterprise is not resourced or organized to bring the needed science and assessments to bear on research priorities relating to the entire life cycle and scope of plastics, or key intervention points identified in this and other expert reports (UNEP 2021a). NOAA has led the federal monitoring and assessment effort and, along with U.S. EPA, conducted research and provided small-scale external research grants. However, as noted in Chapter 6, most research on the extent of plastics in the ocean and the natural environment has been undertaken by scientists outside of federal agencies, funded through both federal and non-federal sources. Emerging federal research and development, initiatives, and public–private collaborations may support more innovation on a range of topics, including materials design (see Table 7.1, Stage 2), but these efforts are in the early stages.
Monitoring and assessments on plastic pollution will require more federal coordination, resources, and attention. Ensuring that the work is
strategic and targeted to support top interventions would benefit from being organized at a higher level of government, such as has been done for many transboundary environmental challenges (e.g., climate change, transboundary pollutants such as CFCs and oil). Models for such high-level federal science coordination exist, such as under the National Science and Technology Council, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. Ocean Policy, and coordination mechanisms such as the IMDCC and interagency ocean observing system committees (Appendix C).
The challenges of implementing a coherent U.S. portfolio of effective system-wide interventions can be targeted and overcome by a new national strategy and implementation plan that builds on existing legal authorities and agency efforts, adopts new models being tested by others, and fills gaps identified above, in Table 7.1, and in Appendix C. Such a system can (1) provide a clear policy and legal framework and goals for reducing plastic waste in the ocean, (2) create economic incentives for improved plastic manufacturing and reduction through reuse and recycling, (3) reduce plastic “leaks” in U.S. waste management and pollution control systems, and (4) address funding gaps and reverse inequitable cost burdens.
An updated U.S. strategy should take a systemic view and better organize actions across the range of federal agencies and programs (Appendix C), as well as state, tribal, and local governments, and other important industry, philanthropy, science, and civil society involvement. It could reflect new information and models for action, such as those being developed and tested by U.S. states and other countries, described above and in Table 7.1. The differences between the current U.S. approach and those being implemented elsewhere, as well as analyses of their effectiveness (see Cornago, Börkey, and Brown 2021, UNEP 2021a), could provide priority areas for evaluation with experts.
Using these resources, the United States could update its policy, goals, and legal framework to reduce the U.S. contribution to global ocean plastic waste and assess this progress. High-level goals could be tailored to identify and address gaps in the U.S. system and unite federal efforts around specific coordinated interventions.
Creating a framework for a system of interventions can align the United States with a global approach (Appendix E). Action could focus on those interventions suited to address the problem and reduce barriers to action. Moreover, U.S. leadership would help position the nation to shape and influence global activities in plastic production, formulation, design, innovation, and waste reduction. This, in turn, can create innovation and economic opportunities that reduce negative economic externalities.
TABLE 7.1 Non-comprehensive Table of Intervention Options Along Plastic Waste’s Path to the Ocean
| Intervention Category | Types of Interventions |
|---|---|
| 1. Reduce Plastic Production | |
| Production or manufacturing restrictions and limits | National goals and strategies to cap or reduce virgin plastic production Reductions in plastic production (as carbon equivalents) as part of global, U.S., and state greenhouse gas emissions goals Moratorium on new petrochemical plants and capacity to reduce production from fossil feedstocks |
| 2. Innovate Material and Product Design | |
| Enforceable product standards for manufacturers | Timebound targets and limits on plastic content of specific products and packaging End-of-life material and design specifications (simplification) for some products, packaging to facilitate reuse, recycling |
| Voluntary commitments and collaborations for innovative material and product design | Government-sponsored research and development collaborations, incentives, and roadmaps (see also “Other Activities” below) Promote industry-wide innovation, standards, collaboration, and regulation by constraining the types of resins used in some applications to maximize value and recyclability Streamline and standardize design to limit variability in packaging End-of-life material and design specifications (simplification) for some products, packaging to facilitate reuse, recycling Encourage following the principles of green engineering and green chemistry |
| Implementers | Specific Illustrative Examples |
|---|---|
| National, state, and tribal governments and industry standards | European Union (EU) Circular Economy Action Plan, March 11, 2020, and EU Directives 2018/850 and 2018/851 (landfill limits and recycling targets) |
| National and state governments, standards organizations Industry (standards and systems) |
Minimum recycled content requirements (California bottle recycled content law [Keller and Heckman 2020]; Washington state and Connecticut [LaMotte et al. 2021]) EU Directive 2018/852 (minimum 55% recycled content in plastic packaging by 2030) Prohibitions on sale of packaging with some plastics, such as polystyrene (e.g., Washington State SB5022, enacted 2021 [Quinn 2021]) |
| Industry, government, academia, nongovernmental (scientific, funding, environmental) organizations, global standards organizations |
U.S. Plastics Pacta Precompetitive and open innovation collaborations within and across industry sectors (e.g., Ellen MacArthur Circular Economy 100 Group [Kleine Jäger and Piscicelli 2021]) SOS 2.0 Genius Prize for Save our Seas Innovations (Department of Commerce and new Marine Debris Foundation) |
| Intervention Category | Types of Interventions |
|---|---|
| Standards for labeling and marketing | Restrict use of chasing arrows symbol on products which lack broad, functional recycling infrastructure (e.g., can be collected, sorted, cleaned, and economically reprocessed) in place in the United States Restrict chasing arrows symbol to items following material standards for that product or material Create enforceable feedstock, performance, and labeling standards for “biodegradable,” “compostable,” “biobased” products, to prevent consumer confusion and potential “greenwashing” Publicly available assessments of and reports on recycling efficacy (markets for recycled materials and fate of items collected in recycling process) |
| 3. Decrease Waste Generation | |
| Plastic product bans (and substitutes) | Ban specific products based upon criteria such as potential for loss to the environment, toxicity, and necessity of use |
| Mandatory procurement rules favoring reusable products | Procurement rules to replace single-use items with reusable goods |
| Reduce loss of pre-production pellets that become waste | Reduce pellet losses and wastes |
| Fiscal tools (fees, taxes, incentives) | Fee on purchase of specific items at point-of-sale to disincentivize their use (e.g., thin film shopping bags) |
| Deposit return systems | Systems that use a deposit to incentivize return or reuse of the packaging or product |
| Extended producer requirements (EPR) (end-of-life management) | Place legal or fiscal responsibility on producers for management and disposal of plastic waste. EPR campaigns often rely on government to set and enforce standards even though responsibility is placed upon companies. Laws and policies that enable life-cycle management such as EPR, take back schemes that meet specific targets for waste diversion and recycling Require recycling rates for products (e.g., beverage bottles). If rates are not met, then fees are charged. |
| Implementers | Specific Illustrative Examples |
|---|---|
| National, state, and tribal governments; consumers and civil society |
U.S. Federal Trade Commission Green Guides for Environmental Marketing Claims CA SB 343 (restricts use of the chasing arrows symbol to only those plastic products that are truly recyclable in California); CA AB 1201 (restricts manufacturers from making the compostable claim unless the product meets specific compostability criteria) Nongovernmental and governmental reports (e.g., Greenpeace 2020, U.S GAO 2020) |
| National, state, local, and tribal governments |
EU Directive 2019/904 (Single-Use Product Ban), effective 2021 Various U.S. state and local bans on single-use products (bags, straws, food service items); See Box 7.1 and Appendix C |
| National, state, and tribal governments Private-sector companies, nongovernmental institutions |
Canada 2018 Strategy: Zero plastic waste (Government of Canada 2021) |
| National and state governments; industry | 2007 California law (AB 258) on pre-production plastic source controlb |
| National, state, municipal, and tribal governments, and consumers | U.S. state and municipal plastic bag laws |
|
U.S. state bottle return laws (see Appendix C) Norway tax on plastic producers, forgiven if recycling tops 95% (now 97% bottles are recycled; 92% can be reused) (Steffen 2020) |
|
| National, state and local, and tribal governments Industry funded/government oversight |
Maine and Oregon packaging EPR laws (2021) and other state EPR laws British Columbia EPR law (85% recovery rate; Paben 2021) Many plastic and non-plastic examples in states (e.g., paint, mattresses)c U.S. EPR requirements for e-waste and pharmaceuticals EU and Norway EPR legislation |
| Intervention Category | Types of Interventions |
|---|---|
| Reusable and refillable systems | Investment in affordable and convenient reuse/refill systems to reduce single-use packaging Fund programs to promote reuse/refill systems |
| 4. Improve Waste Management (Prevent or Reduce Disposal/Discharge) | |
| Disposal, collection, and recycling improvements | Infrastructure for source separation, industrial composting, recycling (including beyond mechanical) Recycling collection and reuse targets and incentives (e.g., bottle bills, deposit refund schemes) Place and maintain receptacles in plastic “hotspot” or high-traffic areas Research and development investment in new methods of depolymerizing plastic waste to promote material/chemical recovery |
| Plastic waste export/import controls | Limit, ban, or voluntarily eliminate plastic waste exports and imports to incentivize waste reduction |
| Treatment improvements to remove plastic waste from discharges | Wastewater treatment standards to remove microplastics and microfibers Products to prevent microfiber releases from equipment (e.g., washing and industrial machines) |
| National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, stormwater limits and treatment | Stormwater discharge regulations for plastics Green infrastructure to filter stormwater |
| Ocean/river discharge limits | Establish regulatory limits on macroplastic or microplastic waste in ocean and river discharges |
| Implementers | Specific Illustrative Examples |
|---|---|
| National, state, and tribal governments Investment through Small Business Innovation Research, government funding, private funders |
CA laws: (1) AB 962 allows beverage producers to sanitize and refill intact glass bottles; (2) CA AB 619d—amends health laws to allow consumers to bring containers for restaurants to fill for to-go. Business examples: Algramo, Loop |
| National, state, tribal, and local governments |
Infrastructure grants under Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and related legislation (Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; see Appendix C) State bottle bills (e.g., CA AB 962e requires the creation of a returnable bottle system in California by January 1, 2024) Cigarette butt bins Lidded trash cans U.S. Department of Energy investments (e.g., Energy. gov 2020); industry initiatives and multiparty alliances; see also research and development, below. |
| National, state, and tribal governments; private sector | None at federal level (not signatory to Basel Convention) CA AB 881 prevents municipalities from counting plastic waste exports as “recycled” Private industry voluntary commitments (Waste Management, Republic Services) China 2018 Import Ban Basel Convention 2019 amendments (require prior informed consent for exports of hazardous plastic waste and most non-hazardous plastic waste) |
| Government, private sector | California requires plastic waste removal from industrial and municipal discharge |
| National, state, and tribal governments | California, Hawaii Trash total maximum daily loads to address plastic waste in stormwater Nonpoint source permit requirements (facility specific, per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance) |
| National, state, and tribal governments | California zero discharge goal for trash (including plastics) by 2030 |
| Intervention Category | Types of Interventions |
|---|---|
| 5. Capture Waste (to Remove Plastic Waste from the Environment) | |
| Remove wastes from waterways | Beach, river, and inland waterway cleanups Trash capture devices in waterways |
| Remove wastes from ocean wildlife and habitats | Ghost net removal; fishing gear return incentives; animal and coral disentanglement |
| Remove plastic waste from localized hotspots | Tire wear particle capture device for roadways Land-based cleanups Research to identify plastic waste hotspots |
| 6. Minimize Ocean Disposal | |
| Increase enforcement for at-sea disposal | Increase enforcement of dumping and disposal of trash |
| Reduce at-sea abandonment or discard of fishing gear | Establish solid waste disposal infrastructure for end-of-life fishing nets and gear Create incentives for land-based, e.g., dockside, disposal of end-of-life fishing nets, gear, and trash Establish identification/tagging for deployed active and passive fishing nets and pots |
| Other Activities (to Support Above Interventions) | |
| Information/data collection | Coordinated tracking and monitoring systems Community-based monitoring National and state economic data, field data and studies Mandatory annual reports on plastic use inventories of public companies and government institutions Require plastic producers to report plastic production on carbon equivalents |
| Implementers | Specific Illustrative Examples |
|---|---|
| Municipal governments, community groups | International Coastal Cleanup/Ocean Conservancy Mr. Trash Wheel, trash booms, etc. |
| National, state, local, and tribal governments; local, industry, and nonprofit groups | Derelict crab pot removal Global Ghost Gear Initiative/Ocean Conservancy Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii/State of Hawaii Marine Debris Rapid Response Ghost Net Removal Program and marine litter removal U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Pacific Islands Fishery Science Center ghost net removal, protected species disentanglement U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program funded community-based marine debris removal projects Hawaii Pacific University Center for Marine Debris Research ghost net removal in state of Hawaii The Northwest Straits Foundation ghost net and derelict crab pot removal in Puget Sound |
| State, local, and tribal governments Academia, nongovernmental organizations, agencies |
Cleanup efforts |
| Global treaty organizations; national, state, local, and tribal governments | MARPOL VI; Ocean Dumping Act implementation measures |
|
EU Directive 2019/904 provides for EPR and proper disposal of fishing gear made of plastics Various national and state fishing gear marking requirements (e.g., Marine Management Organisation 2016, Ocean Outcomes 2020) |
|
| National, state, local, and tribal governments; industry | Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project, U.S. National Water Quality Monitoring Council,f Marine Debris Tracker, International Coastal Cleanup/CleanSwell, regional and local activities Transparency reporting: (1) Shareholder and investor initiatives (e.g., “As You Sow”), (2) Public reporting (e.g., “Plastic Waste Makers Index,” Minderoo Foundation) |
| Intervention Category | Types of Interventions |
|---|---|
| Research and development | Methods to deliver products without packaging Industrially compostable and home compostable polymers, films, and adhesives Product design that maximizes circularity and recyclability Circular materials management and leakage characterization to inform upstream interventions Intersectional and interdisciplinary research to prevent litter and illegal dumping |
| Education and outreach | Professional outreach, co-production of knowledge to inform solutions at local and regional scales Outreach on efficacy of plastic recycling, labeling, and engaging public in solutions Media, school materials, aquaria, and museums including information on ocean plastics Public behavior-change campaigns Community outreach to identify and address local barriers to prevent litter, illegal dumping |
a See https://usplasticspact.org/.
b See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/plasticdebris.shtml.
c See https://www.productstewardship.us/page/State_EPR_Laws_Map.
d See https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB619.
e See https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB962.
f See https://acwi.gov/monitoring/network/index.html.
| Implementers | Specific Illustrative Examples |
|---|---|
| REMADE Institute U.S. Department of Energy Plastic Innovation Roadmap National Science Foundation (NSF) Convergent Accelerator program and NSF Grand Challenges grants Ellen MacArthur Foundation Plastics Pacts; American Chemistry Council Roadmap to Reuse Trash Free Seas Alliance; Global Plastics Alliance and related industry investments and partnerships New Materials Institute Center for Bioplastics and Biocomposites |
|
| All | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Sea Grant College Program Nongovernmental organization and governmental reports, data, outreach U.S. coastal and inland aquarium (Aquarium Conservation Partnership) outreach campaigns on single-use plastics: “In Our Hands” (2017)g and (2) “First Step” on straws (2018) Trash Shouldn’t Splashh Space Apps Challenge, e.g., 2021 Challenge–Leveraging AI/ML for Plastic Marine Debris |
__________________
This page intentionally left blank.
