Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception
Why Chemical Recycling Won’t Solve the Plastic Pollution Problem
For more details, please read Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception, published by Beyond Plastics and The International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) in October 2023.
Braven Environmental facility in Zebulon, NC, courtesy of Schuyler Mitchell, The Intercept
KEY FINDINGS
When the report “Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception” was published in October 2023, there were 11 constructed facilities in the U.S. Two of these facilities closed in the first half of 2024: Regenyx in Oregon and Fulcrum in Nevada.
Most of the remaining nine facilities are not operating at full capacity. Even if they were operating at full capacity, the remaining nine facilities could only process 1.2% of all U.S. plastic waste.
Building these facilities is expensive construction costing up to half a billion dollars per plant, with significant public subsidies.
There is minimal production of actual recycled plastic: Three of the remaining nine plants have a stated purpose of only making feedstock for plastic production. Two only make fuels, and four make a combination of fuels, chemicals, and plastic feedstocks.
Eight of the remaining nine plants are located in environmental justice communities.
Some plants have experienced fires and explosions.
About 16,000 chemical additives are used in making plastics. More than a quarter (4,200) of these chemicals are known to be harmful to human health and/or the environment while even more have not yet been studied (PlastChem, 2024). Toxic chemical additives make much post-consumer resin unsuitable for food-grade uses (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2021).
Constructed U.S. Chemical Recycling Plants, as of August 2024
CHEMICAL RECYCLING TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Chemical recycling processes of the nine remaining plants profiled in this report:
Seven use pyrolysis (Alterra Energy, Braven Environmental, Brightmark, ExxonMobil, New Hope Energy, Nexus Circular, and Prima America).
One uses gasification (Eastman).
One uses solvents (PureCycle).
One uses solvolysis (Eastman).
(The total adds up to 10 because Eastman has two separate processes.)
HIGH CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 11 CONSTRUCTED PLANTS (2023)
Total project costs: at least $1.7 billion
Total subsidy value: at least $184 million (includes $100 million for the now-closed Fulcrum plant)
Private investment: at least $1.1 billion
NOT MEETING RATED PROCESSING CAPACITY
The combined rated annual capacity of the nine remaining plants is about 412,000 tons of plastic waste, or about 1.2% of the U.S. plastic waste generated annually (36 million tons).
Many of these plants are not operating at their rated capacities:
Two are still in test mode (Brightmark and Eastman).
Two are partially operating (New Hope and Nexus).
At least one appears to be non-operational (Prima).
There is little to no publicly available information about the actual operational throughput for three of the remaining nine facilities (Alterra, Braven, and ExxonMobil).
GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Hazardous wastes produced by chemical recycling include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins and furans, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals.
Two of the nine remaining plants are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as large-quantity generators of hazardous waste (Alterra and Braven), while one is classified as a small-quantity generator (PureCycle).
A BURDEN TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES
Using the U.S. EPA’s Environmental Justice Tool:
Eight of the remaining nine plants are located in areas with lower-than-average income.
Four of the remaining nine plants are located in areas with higher-than-average concentrations of people of color.
Brightmark Energy facility in Ashley, Indiana. Source: The Last Beach Cleanup
MORE RESOURCES
REPORT: Chemical Recycling: A False Promise for the Ohio River Valley | Ohio River Valley Institute | July 2024
MEMO: The Fraud of Advanced Recycling | Center for Climate Integrity | April 2024
ISSUE BRIEF: Recycling Lies: “Chemical Recycling” of Plastic Is Just Greenwashing Incineration | NRDC | February 2022
FACT SHEET: “Chemical Recycling” Is Not Recycling: The Plastic Industry Is Greenwashing Incineration | NRDC | September 2022
FACT SHEET: El “Reciclaje Químico” No Es Reciclaje: La Industria Del Plástico Hace Un “Lavado Verde” (Greenwashing) Acerca De La Incineración | NRDC | Septiembre 2022
Updated: August 2024