In a report linked to the massive $1.7 trillion federal budget bill signed into law by President Joe Biden last week, Congress signaled to the Environmental Protection Agency that it should not loosen regulations on chemical recycling of plastic waste. bottom.
Advice from lawmakers is included in the language of the House Appropriations Committee’s report on the federal budget, which calls on the EPA to continue to regulate chemical recycling as incineration with stricter clean air requirements. It wasn’t in the budget itself. Congressional language “encourages” the EPA to consider the environmental impacts of chemical recycling during its ongoing rulemaking process.
Although not legally enforceable, the language of such reports can help document the legislative process of the Comprehensive Budget Bill, help people and courts interpret Congress’ intentions, and send messages. could be possible, experts said this week.
“This sends a very clear message to the (Biden) administration, the EPA and industry that chemical recycling is not recycling,” said Jared Huffman, Democratic California, to secure the wording of the report. with members of the House of Representatives. “These technologies will allow the industry to continue free plastic production while emitting harmful greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals.”
The bill says companies aim to commercialize pyrolysis and gasification recycling technologies, including projects in Pennsylvania and Indiana, as well as turning trash containing 30% plastic into jet fuel. It was born from Scholars have questioned some of the proposals, sparking competition from local residents and environmentalists. It addresses the question of whether future UN conventions should consider chemical recycling as a tool for managing plastic waste.
The American Chemical Council, a leading advocate of chemical recycling, criticized Ocean Conservancy and downplayed the importance of the Commission’s report’s language, despite its own victory in Michigan.
“While Ocean Conservancy claims victory over words without the force of law, constructive stakeholders are celebrating something that will help create a cleaner and more sustainable future,” it said. said Joshua Baka, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council. He said Michigan enacted a law in December to become the latest state to smooth the path of chemical recycling, and the chemistry council said it wanted to “sustain rather than inflate toothless rhetoric.” We will continue to focus our advocacy on making possible change,” he added.
Overall, the Chemical Council has advocated and applauded action by the 21 states since 2017 that have passed laws aimed at regulating chemical recycling as a manufacturing rather than waste management or waste incineration. I was. Such laws are aimed at increasing the scale of chemical recycling and allowing more recycled content to be used in plastic products, Baca said.
According to last year’s study, a small portion of the plastic waste recycled in the United States (less than 6% according to last year’s study) is recycled through mechanical processes such as shredding, melting and remolding. Chemical recycling, often referred to in the industry as advanced recycling, turns plastic materials back into their basic chemical building blocks to produce new plastics, fuels, or plastics for making everything from detergents to cars to clothing. I’m trying to make chemicals. However, the technology is still largely in the research and development stage.
Under EPA regulations, technologies used for chemical recycling, such as pyrolysis and gasification, are considered incineration, increasing clean air management. During the waning years of the Trump administration, the EPA proposed an industry-friendly rule change that said pyrolysis is not combustion and therefore should not be regulated as incineration. The Biden administration will begin a review of Trump’s EPA proposal in September 2021, soliciting comments from the public.
“The EPA appreciates input from Congress,” an EPA spokesperson said Thursday. The EPA is considering comments received in response to the rulemaking “before determining next steps,” the spokesperson said.
The industry claims chemical recycling is not incineration because it does not contain oxygen. Environmental advocates disagree, arguing that the industry is seeking to escape stricter regulations to control hazardous emissions from incineration.
Huffman was on the House floor Thursday amid Republican turmoil over the party’s inability to win enough votes to elect a new speaker for the House. Between polls, Huffman said, “This is the first time I’ve seen wording like this (chemical recycling) at the federal level. It’s a step.”
Although the language is not law, he said, “it shows Congress’ intent,” giving direction to the EPA “in the midst of rulemaking that makes a big difference on this issue.”
A Huffman spokesperson also referenced language contained in the legislative report, stating: Encourages (EPA) to continue to regulate these technologies as municipal waste burning units, as defined in the Clean Air Act.
Huffman said pyrolysis and gasification contribute to the climate crisis and perpetuate environmental injustice in vulnerable communities, said 35 people who sent a letter to the EPA raising concerns about chemical recycling in July. was one of the members of parliament.
In that letter, the MP wrote: The plastics and petrochemical industries are lobbying at the state level to remove emission control requirements for incinerators that use these technologies, exposing vulnerable fenceline communities to toxic emissions from these processes. increase. ”
Sustain environmental journalism
ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free and ad-free. We count on donations from readers like you.
let’s donate
They maintain the requirement that pyrolysis and gasification units meet “existing incinerator standards,” and that people living near chemical recycling facilities can reduce emissions, including harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gases. We asked the EPA to request more transparency so we can know more about the
“The absolute crux of the question is whether these new incinerators need to be controlled like conventional incinerators, or whether contamination can be skipped without being controlled or monitored,” he said. , said James Pugh, director of clean air for the environmental group Earthjustice. training.
He said the language associated with the budget bill “should not require the EPA to comply with the law, but it seems like a useful request.”
james burgers
Reporter, Southeast, National Environmental Reporting Network
James Bruggers covers the Southeastern United States, part of Inside Climate News’ National Environment Reporting Network. He previously covered energy and the environment for his Courier Journal in Louisville, worked as a correspondent for USA Today, and was a member of the USA Today Network’s environmental team. Before he moved to Kentucky in 1999, he worked as a journalist in Montana, Alaska, Washington and California. Bruggers’ work has won numerous awards, including Best of His Beat for his reporting, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and his Thomas Stokes Award for energy report from the National Press Foundation. He served on SEJ’s board of directors for his 13 years, including two years as president. He lives in Louisville with his wife Kristin Bruggers.
