On the peaceful banks of the Susquehanna River in the eastern United States, a property in Point Township is the unlikely setting for a debate over chemical recycling, with plans to build a factory there that will take part in this controversial mechanism for processing plastic waste.
• Also read: Choking Hazard: Nestlé recalls KitKat bars that may contain plastic
Packaging, lids and all kinds of plastics: this technology promises to transform them into various petrochemical products.
While it is advocated by the plastic-producing fossil fuel industry, environmentalists say it runs counter to the priority of reducing waste.
Like other residents of Point Township, Pennsylvania, Annmarie Weber is concerned about the construction of the Texas-based Encina factory.
AFP
“They behave like a refinery,” she complains from her kitchen, which is less than a kilometer from the planned location, and fears “air pollution, water pollution, toxic chemicals.”
In contrast to mechanical recycling, chemical recycling uses heat and chemical solvents to break down plastics back into their basic petrochemical components.
For Sheida Sahandy, responsible for sustainable development at Encina, this process enables the transformation of “what was once waste into a profitable material” at a time when plastic is flooding the oceans and landfills.
Raw materials created through chemical recycling can be used to produce all kinds of products, including fuel. Encina assures that it does not want to produce fuel.
According to the NGO Beyond Plastics, fuel production merely perpetuates “a cycle of petrochemical extraction, plastic production and combustion.”
“Less plastic”
Chemical recycling plants are often allowed to “release harmful air pollution,” notes Veena Singla of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Many of them also produce large amounts of hazardous waste,” the scientist adds.
According to the latest official figures from 2018, only 9% of plastic waste is recycled in the US each year. The majority of plastic ends up in landfills, is burned or thrown into nature.
At its sprawling petrochemical complex in Baytown, Texas, ExxonMobil has one of only 11 chemical recycling plants in the United States, according to Beyond Plastics as of October. Proof, according to the NGO, that this method is still considered too “energy-intensive, costly and unfeasible”.
AFP
Even if these factories were operating at full capacity, they would process less than 1.3% of the plastic waste produced annually in the United States.
Melanie Bower, head of sustainable development at ExxonMobil, nevertheless reiterates that this process is “a complementary technology to mechanical recycling”.
AFP
But for expert Veena Singla, the industries want to convince consumers that it is a “sustainable and ecological way to deal with plastic waste”. “The real solution: less plastic, period!” she concludes.
“Too much risk”
In Point Township, residents also worry about large amounts of Susquehanna water that could be used to wash plastic before being returned to the river.
The returned water “will have gone through a filtering process that it otherwise would not have gone through,” Encina resident Sheida Sahandy said.
“And we have to comply with all possible requirements to ensure that nothing harmful happens,” she emphasizes.
But according to the company itself and local experts, there are no regulations for microplastics and PFAS, common additives in plastics: they do not break down easily and are linked to cancer, health problems, fertility and environmental damage.
And among the petrochemicals Encina produces is benzene, a known carcinogen that residents fear could be released in the event of an accident or natural disaster.
If a company “proposes the use of public resources such as air, water and land, it is legitimate for its background and project to be scrutinized,” said Andrew Stuhl, an environmental specialist at Bucknell University.
For this Pennsylvania professor, “there are far too many risks and unknowns.”