LANSING, MI — Michigan lawmakers are considering legislation that could pave the way for industrial facilities that chemically transform plastics into reusable raw material, but recycling advocates and Democrats are pushing back out of concern that the proposed regulatory changes may have hidden public health and environmental costs.
On Tuesday, April 12, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) urged state legislators during a two-hour hearing to redefine certain “advanced recycling” techniques for plastic waste as “manufacturing” processes outside of solid waste laws.
The legislation, S.B. 954, is sponsored by Sen. Aric Nesbitt, R-Lawton, who told the Senate Environmental Quality Committee that 18 states have passed similar changes and that such facilities are being built in Indiana and Ohio.
“I would hate to see a number of these facilities and the investments they represent all along the border because Michigan didn’t update our regulations to recognize these new technologies,” said Nesbitt, who called it “chemical recycling at a molecular level.”
The bill would amend Michigan’s solid waste management law, known as Part 115, to specifically define “advanced recycling” as a manufacturing process for converting used plastics through techniques such as “pyrolysis, gasification, depolymerization, catalytic cracking, reforming, hydrogenation, solvolysis, or other similar technologies.”
It would also specifically exclude “post-use polymers,” or plastic that’s been used and discarded, as well as “recovered feedstocks,” or plastics chemically broken down into base elements, from Michigan’s Part 115 solid waste law.
Prapti Muhuri with ACC’s plastics division told the Senate committee the changes are necessary to provide “regulatory certainty” for companies investing in such technologies and said that those facilities are going to be built in states with a favorable regulatory landscape.
Muhuri cited Alterra Energy in Akron, Ohio; Nexus Circular in Atlanta, Ga.; and Eastman Chemical in Kingsport, Tenn., as facilities investing in the technologies due to major consumer brand interest in developing sustainable packaging. The goal is to divert waste from landfills and produce feedstock for new plastics and chemicals, not fuel, she said.
Consumer packaged goods companies have made “very ambitious commitments to use 25 percent recycled plastic by 2030. And we’re in 2022,” Muhuri said. “The clock is ticking.”
She characterized the process as “circular” and “environmentally friendly,” saying it doesn’t involve combustion or burning and often involves hard-to-recycle plastic types which have already cycled through existing mechanical recycling facilities several times.
“There’s a lot of material like, you know, your beef jerky pouch, your granola pouches, your phones, your tubs and lids, that aren’t getting recycled, period. That’s going to landfill,” Muhri said. “Those are the good candidates for advanced recycling.”
However, Muhuri received substantial pushback from skeptical Democrats on the committee, who expressed worry that such facilities would be subject to laxer regulation outside the solid waste realm and suggested that they aren’t as environmentally friendly as advertised.
Environmental groups in other states have expressed similar concerns as more “advanced recycling” bills pass. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scrutinizing such technologies and began collecting public feedback last fall on whether techniques like pyrolysis and gasification should be regulated as solid waste incineration.
Last year, a Reuters investigation also found “advanced recycling” facilities in other states and countries have struggled with commercial viability, with most that haven’t been dropped already operating at either modest scale or years behind schedule.
Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, said the chemical industry was simply trying to “avoid environmental regulation” by seeking regulation outside of solid waste laws.
Bayer suggested that experiences with so-called “advanced recycling” facilities in other states indicate they produce toxic emissions and waste of their own, and said they potentially pose an environmental justice concern should they be located in communities, often Black or low-income, which already bear a disproportionate pollution burden.
“It needs to be part of a whole system of managing waste,” Bayer said. “You can call it whatever you want — you’re taking someone’s leftover or used plastics. That’s waste. It’s trash and you’re recycling it. It’s a good idea to recycle it. Just, that’s what you’re doing. Quit trying to pretend that you don’t need environmental regulations.”
Bayer and other committee members, including Sen. Curt VanderWall, R-Ludington, questioned why the legislation was not being advanced as part of a larger package of bills passed last spring by the House which broadly overhaul Michigan’s solid waste laws. Those bills are sitting before Nesbitt in the Senate committee on regulatory reform and include similar “advanced recycling” language as what’s in S.B. 954, but have not received a hearing.
Nesbitt told his fellow senators that he has “reservations” about unspecified mandates in the larger package.
The legislation is opposed by the Michigan Recycling Coalition and environmental groups like the Sierra Club, the Ecology Center and the Michigan Environmental Council.
It is also opposed by some existing recycling operations, such as Padnos, a West Michigan scrap and recycling company, which objected to the chemical industry’s attempt to lay claim to the term “advanced” and said existing mechanical recycling operations are able to handle many of the hard-to-recycle plastic types, such as bottle caps.
The legislation is supported by Dow Chemical and BASF. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), which regulates solid waste processors as well as manufacturers, has not taken a position. The agency did not testify on Tuesday.
