Tapping the promise

A recent study found that if all nonrecycled plastics in the U.S. were converted into energy at facilities that use modern plastics-to-fuel (PTF) technologies, nearly 6 billion gallons of gasoline—enough to fuel nearly 9 million cars per year—could be produced.

Of course, it’s unlikely that all nonrecycled plastics will be converted to fuel. However, significant advances in PTF technologies coupled with growing investments may soon help us stop wastefully burying this material in landfills.

Unfortunately, outdated regulations that treat an energy-laden feedstock—used plastics—as if it was waste are stymieing progress. Fixing these outdated regulations would be relatively painless and could unleash the huge potential of PTF in communities around the nation.
 

Future fuel

The molecules that make up plastics are a powerful source of energy. For example, nonrecycled plastics on average supply more than 15,000 Btu (British thermal units) per pound. That’s more energy per pound than most types of coal. Scientists at Columbia University found the nonrecycled plastics we landfill each year contain enough energy to power 5.7 million homes.

Companies are employing pyrolysis to transform nonrecycled plastics into fuels, chemical feedstocks and other petroleum products. The Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance, part of the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, is working with related industries across the country to help jump-start PTF technologies.

The PTF process varies but usually involves heating the plastics in an oxygen-free environment, where they melt into a liquid and then vaporize into gases. The gases are cooled and condensed into a variety of products, such as oils, fuels and petroleum, that are sold to fuel blenders, manufacturers and industrial users to power vehicles, ships and processes.
 

Modernizing regulations

The infrastructure and processes involved in PTF are the same as others in the manufacturing sector: A feedstock is processed into products that are sold on the market. But, regulations in most states treat the process as waste disposal, with cumbersome, unnecessary restrictions.

This makes no sense as nonrecycled plastic feedstock at a PTF facility is not “putrescible, mixed materials of all different types,” or mixed solid waste.

Existing solid waste codes were not written for the PTF technologies of today. These outdated definitions create a significant barrier for new innovations.

Laws and regulations should treat the facilities that manufacture fuels and petroleum products from nonrecycled plastics the same way they treat any manufacturing facility, not as a waste disposal facility.

Some changes that may need to be made, depending on a jurisdiction’s existing laws and regulations, to help spur the growth of these technologies are:

• Ensure that PTF feedstocks (i.e., nonrecycled plastics) are not classified as “solid waste.” Sorted and graded materials of a similar type that meet the specifications of a manufacturer are feedstocks, and relevant definitions should treat the primary PTF input (nonrecycled material) as such.
• Don’t regulate PTF facilities as “landfills” or “waste-to-energy” facilities. Charging a “tipping fee” does not change the nature of the PTF facility. Some policymakers have suggested that a PTF facility should not be allowed to charge a tipping fee as landfills do because these fees may induce haulers of solid waste to deliver waste to PTF facilities instead of landfills. However, a PTF facility can only use very controlled sorted and graded materials and will not receive mixed materials beyond plastics. Accepting a tipping fee does not suddenly change the nature of the facility or turn these valuable plastics into waste.
• Let recyclers determine whether a viable market for their plastics exists. Some policymakers have suggested banning plastics that can be recycled from PTF facilities as a way to support recycling, but PTF facilities generally do not represent a more profitable market for plastics collected for recycling. Plastics recyclers have financial incentives to sell their material to the highest value use, which typically is recycling.
• Allow storage of plastics on-site. Because of concerns over sham recycling operations that accept and store materials for a fee with no intent to recycle them, some policymakers suggest that PTF facilities should not be able to store any plastics on-site. But PTF facilities typically need a minimum supply of feedstocks—between one to three weeks’ worth—to guard against supply disruptions from events outside of their control, such as labor disruptions and severe weather.
• Allow for disposal of off-spec feedstocks and byproducts. Some policymakers have suggested that conversion technologies must be at least 80 percent efficient, meaning that waste cannot exceed 20 percent of feedstock. While the ultimate goal of each facility is a closed-loop system in which all materials are recycled perpetually with no waste, not every material delivered to a PTF facility can be used, primarily because of quality issues. Plus, byproducts of the PTF process may require disposal. Mandating an arbitrary efficiency target could hamstring facilities and deter investments in these technologies.
• Do not require unnecessary financial guarantees. Because PTF facilities do not treat or store waste like landfills do, they should not be required to create a large fund for maintenance after their future closures, as some policymakers have suggested. PTF facilities must pay to dispose of materials they cannot process and have a financial incentive to accept only materials they can process. It’s unlikely long-term waste disposal issues would arise requiring long-term financial guarantees.
  
   

A fair shake

As the preferred end-of-life option for valuable materials, plastic recycling is growing and is expected to continue to grow. For those plastics that feasibly cannot be recycled, PTF represents a tremendous opportunity to divert more plastics from landfills. These technologies are proven, investors are ready, and the end products are in high demand; all they need right now is a fair shake.

Michael Dungan is director of sales and marketing for RES Polyflow, www.respolyflow.com, Akron, Ohio, and chairman of the Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance.

For more information
The Plastics-to-oil Technologies Alliance of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has developed detailed guidelines to encourage innovation while meeting regulatory requirements for air, process water and stormwater management and management of products and co-products. More information is available at http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/RegulatingPlastics-to-Fuel.