In 2022, the state legislature in Lansing passed a series of waste-related tie-barred house bills, which were updates to Part 115. Part 115 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act focuses on solid waste management. The intention of the eight-bill package was a much-needed modernization of Michigan solid waste law. Michigan has long had some of the lowest recycling rates in the Great Lakes region. I looked into the updates to Part 115 and the broader trend of the growth of a controversial technology called “chemical recycling.” Part 115 includes requirements for counties to implement materials management plans focused on diverting waste from landfills. It calls for the state to eventually reach a 45% recycling rate and bolsters infrastructure for both recycling and composting. Among these positive environmental efforts, which constitute the majority of Part 115, is language allowing for the statewide development of this controversial technology: chemical recycling.

Chemical recycling is being touted as a plastic-back-to-plastic recycling game-changer and marketed as a circular strategy for single-use plastics from mammoth multinational brands like PepsiCo, Unilever and Colgate Palmolive. It is different from conventional mechanical recycling (which cleans, shreds and then melts plastic into pellets to be integrated into the manufacturing of new plastic products) in that it largely uses a technology called pyrolysis to break down plastics in a high-heat, low-oxygen environment that separates their molecular bonds. The intent behind this technology is to allow for plastic recycling to produce a “good as new” or almost-virgin plastic product. However, it is extremely energy intensive, produces yet-to-be-regulated toxins, has made dubious claims about its plastic-to-plastic efficacy, is mostly producing only synthetic fuel, and has failed to scale. Despite this, reports show that “globally, the market for advanced [chemical] recycling technologies is projected to exceed $9 billion by 2031, up from $270 million in 2022.”

These amendments to Michigan’s Part 115 package are examples of the plastic industry’s lobbying efforts to pave the way for chemical recycling development across the nation. The American Chemistry Council is one of the main trade associations lobbying for chemical recycling. The technology has already been approved in 24 states across the country. As the world transitions to renewable energy in the face of climate change, plastics are the oil and gas industry’s “Plan B.” Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and ExxonMobil has assured its shareholders that they can offset “losses from the transition to electric cars with growth in petrochemicals.” Currently, plastic production is projected to triple by 2050. What is often overlooked in the conversations around plastic is that today, almost half of all plastics manufactured are for single-use. 

The plastics industry is aware of the public attention on plastic pollution that has notably grown since the viral video of a plastic straw being pulled from a turtle’s nose in 2015. With the unprecedented expansion planned for plastic manufacturing, there is a simultaneous push for the development of chemical recycling as the plastic industry’s “solution” to the plastic pollution problem. This push is a ploy to keep society addicted to single-use plastics and secure the fossil fuel industry’s profits into the future. It is also an attempt by the plastics industry to preemptively avoid any regulation on plastic production manufacturing restrictions. Again, with almost half of all plastics manufactured today being for single-use, the focus should be on reduction of manufacturing, not an unproven recycling technology.

As states grapple with whether or not to allow for chemical recycling and how it should be regulated, a key component is being left out of the discourse almost entirely: the impact on fenceline communities. In a recent memo to the EPA’s head administrator, 25 members across both the federal House and Senate voiced their concerns around chemical recycling stating, “chemical recycling facilities emit highly toxic chemicals, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, and dioxins, many of which are linked to cancer, nervous system damage, and negative effects on reproduction and development.” ProPublica reports that the process for permitting chemical recycling facilities under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act do not cover the new pollutants coming from chemical recycling processes, nor do we fully know all of the chemical structures of all of the pollutants. “The rules were written before these chemicals existed.”

What this means for Michigan is to be determined. Just months after Part 115 passed, California-based Clean-Seas Inc., along with Michigan building and recycling company American Classic, announced plans to build a $20 million chemical recycling facility in Newaygo, Michigan. However, Democratic Senator Rosemary Bayer is working on legislation that would strike chemical recycling from Part 115. How this ultimately plays out is unclear, but the process is sure to put a wrench in the planning for the Newaygo facility. 

I spoke to Kerrin O'Brien, the executive director of the Michigan Recycling Coalition, and asked about the recycling landscape in Michigan moving forward and for any updates happening at the legislature. O’Brien mentioned a policy known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). This policy already exists for things like electronics, but Michigan is looking at developing EPR for packaging. EPR would place the fiscal responsibility of recycling infrastructure in the hands of producers. The idea is that this would incentivize manufacturers to standardize their packaging to be more mechanically recyclable and help improve the recycling system overall. Industry needs to be a part of finding solutions to the plastics problem. “The American Chemistry Council sought to codify the way the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy already oversees these types of projects. If there are additional concerns that need to be addressed, everyone needs to be at the table to explore resolutions of emerging issues,” said O’Brien. The question remains as to whether the plastics industry would use EPR to feed their chemical recycling plants, or, to improve mechanical recycling in Michigan. Follow the Michigan Recycling Coalition to learn more about Extended Producer Responsibility. 

Katelyn Heflin is a SEAS master’s student studying environmental policy. She is interested in the upstream regulation of plastic manufacturers and is a big proponent of Extended Producer Responsibility. Upon graduation in May 2024, she hopes to work on materials management policy that protects fenceline communities, places fiscal responsibility on manufacturers, and bolsters reduction and reuse. She hopes her work will contribute to building a more equitable and truly circular future. Follow her on LinkedIn.