Opposition to plastics recycling innovation is still a problem.
A couple of years ago, I wrote a column about what was then a new roadblock on its path to plastics circularity: public opposition to new recycling plants. Now it's clear this is a problem that's not going away.
Most of the time, I'm seeing public opposition to projects the industry would call "advanced recycling." That's technology that converts polymers into either chemical feedstocks or fuel, which can be used to make new polymers, chemicals or energy. I can cite a couple of recent examples.
In Howard County, Md., many residents have been adamant in opposition to a pilot plastics recycling plant in Columbia. W.R. Grace & Co. wants to build a plant that would use a catalytic chemical conversion process to recycle plastics. The company calls the technology "cutting edge" and "game-changing."
Scott Purnell, the company's vice president of research and development, has complained about "significant misinformation in the community" about the proposed plant.
"Here's what we are doing: We are working within our existing facility to develop a novel process for recycling plastics during which plastic is processed into smaller molecules that can be reused. This process has the potential to reduce emissions, save energy and lower costs compared with other options and addresses the many shortfalls of other advanced recycling approaches," he wrote.
"Here's what we are not doing: We will not burn or incinerate plastic, and we are not manufacturing microplastics or producing PFAS or 'forever chemicals.' This is a small-scale pilot project for research purposes only," he added.
Grace doesn't typically call its technology "chemical recycling," or "advanced recycling," or "molecular recycling," which are the terms usually used in this sector. But that's what opponents are calling it, and it's facing the same sort of organized campaign that forced Brightmark Energy to cancel plans to build a pyrolysis plant in Macon, Ga.
Elected officials in Maryland and the state's Department of the Environment are under pressure to reject the plant's permit and change zoning regulations to stop the project.
Another big project facing hurdles is in Youngstown, Ohio, where SOBE Thermal Energy Systems LLC wants to use pyrolysis to convert rubber tires into synthetic gas.
SOBE CEO David Ferro has said the company's technology would be "very clean with zero hazardous waste and zero hazardous emissions." But faced with public opposition, the Youngstown City Council has placed moratoriums on the project that don't expire until November 2025 — and current council members don't seem to be inclined to ever allow the plant to move forward.
That didn't stop the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency from granting the project an air pollution permit. That decision stirred up opponents once again.
I'd argue that the entire plastics industry isn't completely sold on chemical recycling. Some projects have failed. The cost of resin made from chemically recycled feedstocks isn't competitive with conventional plastics. But chemical recycling is still a key part of resin suppliers' strategies to reduce their carbon footprint, make plastics more sustainable and help customers meet recycled-content goals and requirements.
With all the public opposition, is that a realistic strategy? Some more chemical recycling success stories would help make that case. We're still seeing resin suppliers investing in new chemical recycling capacity, but those investments are still dwarfed by their spending on conventional plastics.
As long as that's the case, and as long as public opposed to chemical recycling exists, it looks like chemical recycling is going to be a pretty small niche in the global plastics industry.
Loepp is the editor of Plastics News and author of the Plastics Blog. Follow him on X @donloepp.