Early in my career, I was a Clean Air Act lawyer. (I’m quite certain you’re impressed by that statement.)
I guess technically I still am. But now I’m head of America’s Plastic MakersSM that represents… well, America’s plastic makers: U.S. companies that make, use and/or recycle plastics.
In this role, I’ve had to learn lots of new things. One thing I did not need to learn: the Clean Air Act. Originally passed in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990, the CAA was well established before my start time in Washington. So, I’ve been lawyering on the CAA for some time (I’m not going to say how long…).
That experience is rather helpful now that the Environmental Protection Agency wants to clarify an issue of great importance to America’s Plastic Makers: recycling.
To the average American, this probably sounds like a rather arcane issue: Should EPA clarify that a certain technology used for recycling plastics is not regulated as the combustion of solid waste? Additional background on this issue here.
Not one of your typical family dinner conversations. But for plastic makers who want to make as much new plastics out of used plastics as feasible, this question matters.
The technology being regulated by EPA is called pyrolysis. It’s been used throughout human history to make everyday products we all enjoy (such as our morning coffee). More info on pyrolysis here.
At one place in regulations for the CAA, EPA rather inelegantly references “pyrolysis/combustion.” That reference has created some confusion.
Pyrolysis oil from plastic recycling is used to make a bunch of products, including new plastics. By applying pyrolysis to plastics recycling, we can significantly increase the types and amount of plastics that can be recycled. It’s a really noble effort that can not only improve sustainability but power new U.S. manufacturing jobs and increase our nation’s economic output (see report here).
To help enable this path forward, EPA wants to clarify that pyrolysis used in recycling and pyrolysis used for the combustion of waste should be treated differently under the CAA. And the agency has asked for public input. Read EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s thoughts on this issue here.
This seems like a slam dunk because pyrolysis used in plastics recycling is nothing like combustion. Combustion obliterates materials. It’s what happens in mass burning incinerators used to dispose of our nation’s waste. In addition, combustion occurs in the presence of air. (It’s also what occurs in your car’s internal combustion engine when gasoline is fully consumed, leaving nothing useful.)
Conversely, pyrolysis when used for recycling heats used plastics in the absence of air, manufacturing new materials that have value. It’s the opposite of combustion: the goal of pyrolysis-based advanced recycling is to recover materials, while combustion is used to destroy them. Multiple companies have invested billions of dollars into manufacturing these new, valuable materials.
Slam dunk, right? Well…
There’s been a bit of blowback from some groups that express concern over how the CAA will ensure that pyrolysis units used for plastics recycling comply with regulations that limit air emissions. The concern is legitimate – any manufacturing facility should be required to comply with all federal, state and local laws to protect our environment and health.
This is where my CAA lawyering comes in handy. Pyrolysis used for recycling can adequately be regulated as manufacturing under CAA Sections 111 and 112 instead of Section 129.
All three of these CAA sections stringently regulate the operations and emissions of facilities. But each section does this differently based on the nature of the process. Section 129 covers processes that combust solid waste. Sections 111 and 112 cover most forms of manufacturing, which is appropriate for plastics recycling: combustion does not occur in creating pyrolysis oil, and the process manufactures new products.
This all may sound like much ado about nothing. But without clear regulations, investment in this promising recycling technology had been hamstrung. As I’ve said many times before:
“There are few more surefire paths to stifle innovation than ambiguous regulations.”
The simple clarification that one section of the CAA applies over another will provide regulatory certainty and help unleash the innovation needed to jumpstart plastics recycling while ensuring communities are protected.
So, yeah, this is not a front burner topic at family dinner tables. But increasing plastics recycling does have the ability to provide new jobs and investment in communities across our country, something that’s on the minds of many American families. A modest tweak in how we regulate plastics recycling can help.
I guess I’ll always consider myself a Clean Air Act lawyer. Which is why I’m very comfortable bringing up plastics recycling and the Clean Air Act at our family dinner table.
Maybe that’s why our dinners are getting so short… 🤔
