Congressional Democrats push EPA on chemical recycling

WASHINGTON—A group of Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Cory Booker and California Reps. Jared Huffman and Alan Lowenthal, have written to the Environmental Protection Agency raising concerns about the climate and environmental justice impact of chemical recycling.

The July 14 letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan focused on what it said are hazardous waste and greenhouse gas emissions from chemical recycling of plastics, and it asked the agency to continue to regulate the processes as waste combustion.

The letter comes as EPA has opened a rulemaking asking how it should regulate some chemical recycling technologies, including pyrolysis and gasification.

The lawmakers said they were "disappointed to see EPA include chemical recycling in Part One of the National Recycling Strategy."

But a plastics industry group took issue with the characterization in the lawmakers' letter, saying that EPA is correct to include advanced recycling, as some in the industry call the technology, in its recycling strategies.

"One thing is abundantly clear: advanced recycling is not incineration," said Matt Seaholm, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association. "To encourage the EPA to treat it as such just doesn't make sense. We were encouraged to see the EPA include advanced recycling in their National Recycling Strategy and continue to support it being an important component in our nation's efforts to recycle more material."

The industry's position does have support from some members of Congress.

Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., wrote the agency in December urging EPA to regulate chemical recycling as a manufacturing process, and not as incineration or waste processing.

"These technologies can further EPA's effort to build a circular economy by reducing material use, increasing the number of plastics that can be recycled, and recapturing resources to create new products, rather than relying on more fossil fuels," Peters wrote.

Seaholm said it is counterproductive to limit chemical recycling technologies.

"As a country, we need to recycle more plastic and advanced recycling will undoubtedly increase the amount of material that is recycled," Seaholm said. "To arbitrarily disqualify it for political purposes will be counterproductive to the shared goal of higher recycling rates."

Booker, from New Jersey, and the other lawmakers behind the July 14 letter, however, urged the EPA to regulate chemical recycling as waste technologies.

They also pushed the agency to find ways to improve traditional mechanical recycling and cut back on single-use plastics.

"We ask that EPA continue to regulate pyrolysis and gasification units as waste combustion units so that the most vulnerable communities do not bear even more of a burden from existing facilities," they wrote. "We also urge the EPA to prioritize solutions that reduce our reliance on single-use plastic and move us towards a circular economy through source reduction interventions and improved mechanical recycling as it implements the National Recycling Strategy.

"Technologies that worsen the climate crisis, perpetuate a reliance on single-use plastics, and adversely impact vulnerable communities cannot be viewed as viable solutions moving forward," they said.

The letter is similar to another, sent in late April, from 25 members of Congress to colleagues who control EPA spending, asking them to direct the agency to take a skeptical approach toward chemical recycling.