The U.S. Dept. of Energy Should Reject Providing Financial Support for Replacing Coal with Plastic Waste in Steel Plants

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed a $182.6 million federal loan guarantee from Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds for a project that includes replacing coking coal in steel plants with plastic waste. The funding would be for a single facility in Erie, Pennsylvania that would process 160,000 tons of plastic waste annually. The International Recycling Group would mechanically recycle part of the plastic and send the rest to a steel plant in northwest Indiana for use in blast furnaces.

The IRA aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but plastics are made from fossil fuels and are a source of climate pollution at every stage of their lifecycle. In fact, if plastic were a country it would be the world’s fifth largest greenhouse gas emitter. Instead of addressing the root causes of climate change, this project includes burning plastic, a false solution to plastic pollution. There are far more deserving projects for IRA funding that would support environmental justice and sustainability while effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects as well as building the infrastructure needed to support reusables and refillables to reduce single-use plastics.

We urge the Department of Energy to avoid using federal funds meant to mitigate climate change to fund any of the following:

  1. Any project that burns plastic including use of plastic waste in steel plants, cement kilns, and municipal waste incinerators. Incineration fails to reduce plastic production from fossil fuels and can increase hazardous air pollution due to the 16,000 different chemicals that are used in plastics, many of which are known to be toxic to humans.

  2. Mechanical plastic recycling. The Department of Energy’s own data shows that plastic is recycled at a rate of less than 6%. This is not due to a lack of effort or investment, as materials like glass, paper, and aluminum are effectively recycled at much higher rates than plastics. Rather, these shockingly low numbers are due in part to the many different types of resins, colorants, and chemicals used in plastics, effectively making plastics difficult to impossible to recycle. 

Recycling plastic has never been effective at reducing plastic waste, nor can we expect it to become so with plastic production reaching record highs year after year. The only effective solutions to the plastic pollution crisis are waste reduction and to replace single-use plastics with reuse and refill systems or switch to truly recyclable materials such as paper, cardboard, and metal.

Oppose this project to burn plastic in place of coal in blast furnaces at steel plants

If DOE approves this funding, the International Recycling Group (IRG) will build a massive facility in Erie, Pennsylvania that will collect plastic waste from a 750-mile radius. Some of the plastic will be mechanically recycled and the rest will be sent to steel plants to replace coking coal in blast furnaces, creating harmful pollution.

Although the DOE claims that this project aligns with President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative, intended to benefit marginalized, pollution-burdened communities, it risks doing the opposite. Both Erie, Pennsylvania and the community surrounding the steel plant in Indiana could face increased pollution, threatening residents' health and lowering property values.

In Erie, the facility would increase diesel emissions from truck traffic. Erie could also expect micro- and nano-plastic pollution at each stage of the process, which is concerning as the facility site is adjacent to the Boys & Girls Club, near schools, and just a mile from Lake Erie. The flammable plastic waste that would be stored on site also raises fire hazard concerns.

 

Googlemaps view of 1565 East Lake Road, Erie, Pennsylvania, the proposed site of IRG facility.

 

The plastic waste that IRG cannot mechanically recycle, will be shredded into 6-mm plastic flakes, which will then be sent to a steel mill to be burned in blast furnaces in place of some amount of coking coal. This would merely substitute one form of fossil fuel for another, generating toxic pollution, and greenhouse gasses. It would also set a dangerous precedent, encouraging more taxpayer investments in an economic model that relies on the continued generation of plastic waste.

A better investment of these funds would be projects that directly reduce plastic use and production. Many have contacted DOE Secretary Jennifer Granholm, urging the Department of Energy to withdraw this loan guarantee. Click here to add your name to the petition. >>

 

Aerial view of downtown Erie, Pennsylvania and Presque Isle State Park. Photo courtesy of Ken Winters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

 

What else could DOE accomplish with $182.6 million to address plastic pollution?

Plastic is a climate change polluter at every stage of its lifecycle, beginning with the extraction of fossil fuels and ending in a landfill, incinerator, the environment or, if this project proceeds, blast furnaces. Reducing plastic production and pollution is a key strategy to slow the pace of climate change while also protecting our environment, reducing human health hazards, and ensuring environmental justice. This can be done in the following ways:

  1. Replacing single-use plastics with reuse and refill systems. Single-use packaging is the largest source of plastic pollution. The most direct way to reduce single-use packaging is to replace single-use plastics with reusable and refillable packaging. Reuse has a much lower carbon footprint than recycling (and this is true for all materials) because the packaging waste does not need to be processed and re-manufactured before it is refilled. The infrastructure needed to achieve reuse and refill would create lasting green jobs that can help replace jobs in the petrochemical industry.

  2. Redesigning products and materials to have less packaging, be less toxic, and/or more recyclable. Tried and true packaging materials like glass, paper, and aluminum can replace plastics and be effectively recycled. Meanwhile, new types of packaging can be designed to be plastic-free, biodegradable, and contain fewer toxic chemicals. However, the infrastructure to support these initiatives has yet to break through on a larger scale that could compete with landfills and incinerators, keeping our lives entrenched with single-use plastics.

An assortment of refillable/reusable models. Images courtesy of Okapi Reusables and Ahimsa Home.

RESOURCES

Page last updated on October 4, 2024