Plastic Pollution Crisis from “beyondplastic.org”

Article by Randi Pokladnik, Ph.D. (Environmental Scientist), 10/12/22

As consumers become increasingly aware of the health risks and environmental issues associated with a world drowning in plastics, the petrochemical industry is advocating another false solution to address the plastic crisis facing the planet: advanced recycling or chemical recycling.

Chemical recycling uses incineration processes including pyrolysis, gasification, and solvolysis to break down plastic waste. The industry claims this will make plastic production “circular” by using plastic to make more plastic and keeping hard-to-recycle plastic waste out of landfills. A 2019 study by the U.S. Department of Energy estimated the US discarded 44 million metric tons of plastic, and 86 percent of this plastic ended up in landfills.

The PR departments of the plastics industry and the American Chemical Council are working overtime to convince politicians and citizens that chemical recycling is the answer to the enormous problem of plastic wastes. However, like carbon capture and “blue hydrogen”, this process is just another way to greenwash an industry that is responsible for 400 million tons of plastic waste each year. From cradle to grave, the entire process of plastic production has a significant carbon footprint. Even the United Nations has declared plastic wastes as a serious threat to humanity and the planet.

By using the term “recycling” the industry is misleading consumers and decision-makers. Recycling means ‘”to return a material to a previous stage of a cyclic process.” If the waste plastic material was indeed turned back into a similar plastic, it would provide a benefit to the environment by reducing the need for fossil-fuel-based feedstock to create virgin plastic. But this is not the case with chemical recycling where the majority of plastic wastes are being converted and used as a fuel source.

The technology of chemical recycling can be grouped into two main categories: heat-based and solvent- based. There are two primary methods that use heat and pressure to break down the long chain plastic polymers: pyrolysis and gasification. Both apply high temperatures to the waste plastic in a low oxygen setting or an oxygen-depleted reactor. Solvent-based depolymerization is a bit more complicated as it relies on heat as well but also includes various steps and solvents to break bonds, to strip out impurities, or to retain in-tact polymers.

A study released in September 2022, shows that reuse and mechanical recycling of plastic packaging are both better choices when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “Emissions from mechanical recycling are lower than those from chemical recycling by a factor of 9.” The study also points out that reducing the amounts of unnecessary packaging will also help move the world towards a zero-emission economy.

Other factors to consider, aside from the fact that the majority of facilities are not truly recycling any plastic, are the large quantities of hazardous waste generated, the amounts of toxic air pollutants released, and the fact that facilities are “disproportionately located in communities of low income or people of color, or both.”

Agilyx, located in Tigard, Oregon is one of the few commercial-scale facilities in operation. It uses pyrolysis to turn polystyrene into the monomer styrene, which is used to make more polystyrene. Much of the styrene however is used as a fuel source. The plant released 500,000 pounds of hazardous waste in 2019. Styrene is made from benzene, a known carcinogen. PureCycle located in Ohio is also a large-scale hazardous waste producer with more than 2200 pounds of hazardous waste generated per month.

Chemical recycling requires a considerable amount of energy and obtains this by burning fossil fuels, thus adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. “In 2019 alone, the global production and incineration of plastic accounted for more than 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere, approximately equal to the emissions from 189 five-hundred megawatt coal power plants.”

Additionally, when plastic is burned, the carbon portion of the polymer is combusted but other toxic additives used in plastic production remain in the residue. If the plastic is used for fuels or chemical feedstocks, the non-combustible materials will remain intact. These toxins can be carcinogenic or endocrine disruptors and include: dioxins, furans, heavy metals, flame retardants, PAHs, VOCs, phthalates, bisphenol A, chlorine and fluorine. The “EPA provides little information about emissions and relies heavily on self-reporting by the industry.”

The American Chemistry Council has promoted chemical recycling and is “actively trying to influence state and local governments and decision-makers to approve new plastic expansion projects, remove regulatory obstacles, and award public monies or tax breaks to pass some of the needed investment on to taxpayers.” The ACC and other trade associations support bills which would allocate money (HR 5115) for recycling infrastructure including chemical recycling as well as funding dollars for research (HR 7728) on the technology.

A 2020 Greenpeace report “Deception by the Numbers” looked at financial investments for 51 chemical recycling projects. They found since 2017, $506 million had been awarded via public funds such as bonds, loans, grants, tax credits and other incentives. Of that $506 million, “89 percent was spent on waste-to-fuel/plastic-to-fuel.” Taxpayers are not paying for plastic recycling but rather paying for fuels for the petrochemical industry.

One of the major sticking points when it comes to regulations is the classification of chemical recycling. It is being defined as a manufacturing process rather than a waste incineration process. This means facilities are subject to less stringent air and water quality requirements. Currently, there are twenty signed state laws, including HB 166 in Ohio and SB 4084 in West Virginia, that redefine waste to exclude “advanced/chemical recycling”. One of the few states to kill an industry-backed bill was Rhode Island. A June 27, 2022 issue of “Plastic News” reported that two senior Democrats had “significant questions about the bill.” Environmental groups in the state argued that the state should focus on reducing single use plastics. The Conservation Law Foundation said “there was no evidence to support the claim that new plastics were being made, and instead materials were being burned creating climate-changing gases and air pollution.”

A final concern with these dangerous facilities is where they are located. In most cases, poor communities of color seem to be the sites for the majority of waste to energy plants. You will not see a chemical recycling facility in a rich suburb. Many lawmakers admit this is clearly a case of environmental injustice. They are writing and passing laws hoping to address the disproportionate amounts of hazardous facilities, like chemical recycling, located in poor communities, near schools, close to water sources, and adjacent to parks and public lands. (Rhode Island HB 5923).

SOBE Thermal Energy Systems is proposing a “recycling facility for tires and plastics” in Youngstown, Ohio. Basically, they will be using gasification to create a fuel that will be burned to create steam to heat some downtown buildings.

When the CEO of SOBE, Dave Ferro, was questioned about this facility his reply was, “his plant would be as clean or cleaner than natural gas.” Any peer reviewed analysis of the incineration of plastics/tires will point out the toxic air pollutants created in the process (dioxin and furans) as well as all the plastic additives that will not be fully destroyed. This facility will subject the community to a constant stream of toxins in their air, land and water. I urge anyone who thinks this is a good idea to do the research, read the scientific studies. Do not buy into industry claims that this is recycling. It is simply a dirty waste-to-energy project.

High temperature cracking consumes fuel creating GHG & pollutants

From the Spring 2022 Newsletter of Concerned Ohio River Residents, WV – OH – PA

The Thai company, PTT Global Chemical America returned $20 million to the state of Ohio since they did not meet the deadline set forth in the agreement they made with the state years ago. They have not started construction and their air permit with Ohio EPA expired in Feb. 2022 as well. The state gave the company around $70 million total to prep the site in Dilles Bottom, OH to build the massive ethane cracker/plastics plant, and now that they had to return a good portion of it, many are questioning even more if the plant will ever get built.

“PTTGCA’s decision to let the air permit expire is the latest indicator that the project is extremely unlikely to move forward, and certainly will not be moving forward any time soon,” said Megan Hunter, senior attorney at the Chicago-based EarthJustice advocacy organization. “We are thankful that at least for now, the community is safe from the air pollution that would come from the facility.”

“Currently in the global economy, there is a massive overcapacity for the production of ethylene and polyethylene,” said Sean O’Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute. “There’s been massive build-out along the Gulf Coast, and there’s also been major build-out in Asia, particularly in China. The competitive atmosphere is a pretty daunting one.”

What does this latest news mean for the Ohio Valley? No one is for certain, but we will keep you updated as we learn more about the situation. We should continue to push our elected officials to move on to some type of development that is sustainable and healthy, rather than extractive and dirty. Let’s come together in a positive way and create the future we want to have in the Ohio Valley.

#######+++++++#######+++++++########

Lyondell Basell to shutter Houston oil refinery in exit from refining

From an Article by Erwin Seba, Reuters News Service, April 21, 2022

HOUSTON, April 21 (Reuters) – Chemical maker Lyondell Basell Industries will permanently close its Houston crude oil refinery by the end of 2023. The decision comes after two failed attempts to sell the plant and the closing of five U.S. refineries in the last two years. Refining until recently has been beset by high costs and low margins.

“After thoroughly analyzing our options, we have determined that exiting the refining business by the end of next year is the best strategic and financial path forward,” said Ken Lane, interim chief executive. The refinery, which makes gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, will remain in operation and the company will continue to seek potential transactions and/or alternatives for the roughly 700-acre site on the Houston Ship Channel.

The company earlier took a $264 million impairment charge as part of its decision to exit refining. In the past 10 years, Lyondell has twice mounted efforts to sell the 263,776 barrel-per-day refinery but failed to conclude a deal.

John Auers, executive vice president of Turner, Mason & Co, a Dallas-based energy consultancy, said Thursday’s announcement means “there will definitely be people knocking on the door” to look at the refinery. “The refinery could sell for a significant amount,” Auers said. “I certainly don’t expect it to close given this statement.”

Lyondell said the refinery, once the anchor of its supply chain as a regional chemical company, no longer fit with its global petrochemical production. “While this was a difficult decision, our exit of the refining business advances the company’s decarbonization goals, and the site’s prime location gives us more options for advancing our future strategic objectives, including circularity,” Lane said. Circularity refers to efforts by plastics manufacturers to increase spare finished plastics from landfills and return them to the supply chain for chemical plants.

Comments needed on water pollution potential of complex plastics industry

New Year Greetings from the Concerned Ohio River Residents (CORR), January 17, 2022 ~

As we are all weathering the winter storm and (hopefully) enjoying the snow, we ask that you take a couple actions to help protect the Ohio River today. The PTT Global Chemical ethane cracker/plastics plant proposed for Belmont County, OH (just 5 miles south of Shadyside) is still on indefinite hold.

They still have not announced a Final Investment Decision, and have been stringing along residents and decision makers for far too long – almost 7 years. Despite the fact that the future is still uncertain for this major polluting facility, they still have applied to renew their water pollution discharge permit with the state of Ohio – a move that does not necessarily indicate the project is moving forward.

We need you to take action today to help us tell the state of Ohio that enough is enough.

The Ohio River serves as a drinking water source for 5 million people with 23 water supply intakes located downstream from the proposed facility, including the drinking water intake for the city of Cincinnati. The closest water supply intake to the site of the proposed PTTGCA facility is in Sistersville, WV only approximately 30 river miles downstream.

Recent research has found that existing petrochemical facilities are already permitted to pollute 500,000 pounds of toxic discharge into the Ohio River. The PTTGCA plant would further exacerbate this problem. The Ohio EPA did not do an antidegradation review before issuing the permit the first time – something they should have done to see how the extra load of toxins would impact the River.

Additionally, the Ohio EPA put out the public notice for this water discharge permit renewal on December 20th – during the holidays – a time when people are not paying attention to these kinds of things, therefor we also need to ask for an extension to the comment period and for a public hearing.

Comments are due by this Wednesday, January 19th. Please submit your comment today. Click this link to open a document with a full comment that you can copy/paste into an email to the Ohio EPA.

Please insert your own unique comments as they carry even more weight than just submitting the generic comment. But, if you don’t have the time, just sending this language is helpful! Tell them your story about living along the Ohio River or why you care.

Send comment to the following three (3) email addresses: HClerk@epa.ohio.gov, Nicholas.McGovern@epa.ohio.gov, Ariel.Ruth@epa.ohio.gov

Please insert the following text into the subject line of the email:

Re: PTTGCA Application No.: OH0144967 Public Comment

Please also bcc our group so we know how many comments were submitted! Our email address is: general@concernedohioriverresidents.org

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

SEE ALSO: PTTGC Ethane Cracker Project for the Mid-Ohio River Valley is Stalled, — FrackCheckWV.net, September 24, 2020

SEE ALSO: FIDdlesticks: Why PTTGC can’t make up its mind — Sean O’Leary, Ohio River Valley Institute, June 24, 2021

Food & Water Watch analysis of employment

From an Article by Alison Grass, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, October 16, 2020

The road to the White House once again runs through Pennsylvania, which explains the campaign photo ops and nonstop TV ads. It also means we’ll be treated to a lot of claims about fracking. Unfortunately, much of what we’re hearing about drilling is not rooted in the facts.

The stories that the Trump campaign and the fracking industry tell are straightforward: Fracking equals jobs, and lots of them. Trump tells his supporters that 600,000 (or occasionally even 900,000) fracking jobs in Pennsylvania are at risk due to a ban on drilling. That is nowhere near the truth — the real number is under 30,000 — and Joe Biden does not support a fracking ban in the first place.

The Trump team makes the same kinds of boasts about the Shell petrochemical cracker plant going up in Beaver County, which has become a regular campaign backdrop. In a sense, this is perfectly fitting; that facility, and the massive public subsidies that have been wasted on it, are emblematic of Trump’s distorted fossil fuel agenda. The public will eventually shell out $1.6 billion — in the form of corporate tax credits — to help subsidize the $6 billion facility, which will convert fracked gas byproducts into plastics. This is, in Trump’s view, a huge success story; he even once bizarrely claimed credit for the plant’s existence.

But the Shell saga is not a success, it’s a cautionary tale. Contrary to the boasts of petrochemical backers, the plant was mostly built with imported materials and out-of-state workers. Instead of providing for thousands of local, permanent jobs, it will create about 600. And these massive corporate giveaways don’t create jobs — they serve to widen the inequality gap.

The fossil-fuel industry and its political allies are telling us the same story we’ve always heard: If you want the jobs, you have to put up with living with the air and water pollution. But new research from Food & Water Watch shows that “choice” is false. Our new analysis — “Cracked: The Case For Green Jobs Over Petrochemicals In Pennsylvania” — shows that a similar level of investment in wind and solar manufacturing would create as many as 16,000 permanent jobs.

But let’s be real: Subsidies and tax breaks alone are unlikely to attract manufacturers. The most effective way to ensure the transition to a green economy is through a large-scale buildout of publicly owned renewable electricity. This should include a comprehensive, New Deal-scale green public works program that guarantees employment for fossil-fuel workers and prioritizes American-made renewable energy and energy-efficient equipment, materials and appliances.

The fact that clean energy manufacturing provides a much more serious jobs boom should move Pennsylvania’s political leaders to pursue policies to create an economy that works for everyone. Unfortunately, state lawmakers are still banking on fossil fuels and petrochemicals.

Right now, the entire “debate” around fracking in Pennsylvania is marred by outlandish exaggerations and a willful blindness to the realities of the fossil-fuel business. As national media outlets pontificate about what the presidential candidates will do to “protect” fracking jobs, the industry is in the midst of a devastating collapse. While the campaign rhetoric spins fantasies about hundreds of thousands of good jobs, in the real world fracking jobs are disappearing and companies are going bankrupt.

The Shell cracker plant does not represent the kind of future that will truly benefit all Pennsylvanians. Instead of spending billions of dollars to create a few hundred jobs — and unknown quantities of air and plastic pollution — the state should make serious investments in wind and solar manufacturing, which will create far more stable, long-term jobs at a fraction of the cost.

>> Alison Grass is research director at the national advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

#. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #. #.

FACT CHECKER: Trump campaign promotes false claim that Biden would end fracking – The Washington Post, October 7, 2020

More than six months after former vice president Joe Biden became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, the Trump campaign still acts as if it is running against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Plastics & Microplastic Particles from Marcellus Shale Resources

Article by S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor & Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV
 
The unnatural world of today’s humans, discussed in my last article, involves use of starting materials which are degraded so they can not be reused.  These include both inorganic and organic materials.  They include something that is degrading the biological world that most of us have not heard of.  Today, in place of wood, which readily biodegrades, and metals, we use of materials made from hydrocarbons, which we call plastic, for many common items.
 
These plastics are expected to break up into small pieces as the result of the UV radiation in sunlight.  They don’t have chemistry susceptible to being broken down to molecular size as microbes do, but remain at a size barely visible and a little above for a very long time.  This removes any physical problems which would result from them being large chunks, sheets or fibers. but cause a particular set of problems on their own.
 
Before getting to the problems, lets say more about the chemistry of plastics.  Some of the many kinds by formula can be made from oil and coal, but the preferred “feedstock” is a derivative of natural gas.  As you probably know, natural gas is primarily methane, CH4.  What comes up the well in many places is called “wet gas” and includes other compounds, C2H6, ethane, C3H6, propane (yes, that propane), and butanes, C4H10.  These compounds are gases, which from butane in reverse order to methane can be liquefied by more and more pressure and cooling.  There may also be some pentane, C5H12 and larger, related compounds.  These are liquids, which may be considered as evaporated into the lighter gases, but are present in small quantities.  Compressing and cooling are used to separate these compounds.
 
Ethane and separately, propane, are put through a “catalytic cracker”  (“cracker” for short), to produce ethylene and propylene and hydrogen.  This leaves a more reactive “double bond,” in the carbon compounds, so the products can form a huge variety of different compounds when added to other simple molecules, like H2O, HCl, and styrene, which can then be converted to plastics, typically having very large molecules.  In bulk these molecules can be formed into three dimensional items, sheets and fibers.
 
This is why “wet” gas rather than dry gas is so eagerly sought.
 
Unfortunately, petroleum based plastics can not be decomposed by microbes, like biological molecules.  Many of them break down to small size pieces as a result of UV in sunlight, and, if on the surface, mix in and escape notice.  These little pieces are almost immortal, though.
 
The problem is they are ingested by small animals and disrupt their life cycle.  This happens in the sea with small animals which are the base of the food chain for larger fish and some larva of fish.  These creatures ingest the microplastic particles like their ordinary food, some of them in preference to their usual food.  They lack nourishment, and some are affected mechanically in their gut so they die.  The effect is to reduce the fish population, including food fish,  and some incorporation of the microplastic particles in fish  and animals higher up the chain.
 
The same thing happens on land with small creatures which live in the soil, but this does not seem to have the significance it does in the sea.  Plastics beyond the reach of sunlight in the soil are almost immortal.  Huge deposits, almost geological in extent, of our rejected materials are bing built in almost every county in the United States and other developed country, and also in less developed countries, because these materials are so cheap and handy.
 
This doesn’t exhaust the problems with plastics.  The old human habit of carelessly discarding used materials, which goes back beyond the stone age, means many of us even where proper disposal methods are available toss plastics by the roadside and in streams.  While the UV acts on this litter they uglify the roadsides and streams.  What goes into streams washes down stream, some producing greater litter when it catches in brush along the water, floating behind dams and the like, catching along shore when flood waters go down, and so forth.   Many beaches are notoriously trashy from plastic that washes in from the sea.
 
So what is the answer?  Public awareness and making the light strong materials we need from natural sources.  It is pretty hard to make a dent on the habits of some people.  Littering laws are in place, but law enforcement requires a designated officer to catch the individual.  Draconian punishments for the rare culprit caught don’t work.  It requires public education preferably at an early age, and advertising to remind adults people.  (Advertising  that , unfortunately, doesn’t make a profit.)
 
Polymers exist in nature, particularly fibers. These are mostly cellulose from plants, with some protein from animals like sheep.  These exclusively were used for textiles until the petroleum age.  Plants include other materials that could be modified to take the place of plastics, too.  Priority should be given to the chemistry needed to create the materials civilization  needs, and how to form these new materials into sheet and three dimensional products that are light, strong, take color well, and are biodegradable.
 
This will be a slow process, and it isn’t as urgent as stopping carbon dioxide pollution of the atmosphere.  However, the one most important ingredient to make the change we do have in abundance – people to train in chemistry.

Too Much Plastic Debris is Accumulating

Microbeads, Marine Debris, Regulation and the Precautionary Principle

Essay by Steven Cohen, Executive Director, Columbia University Earth Institute, December 28, 2015

A small, one could say, micro-sized miracle took place earlier this month as the United States Congress enacted the Microbead Free Waters Act of 2015. This legislation requires that manufacturers remove the beads, largely used in cosmetics, from their products by July 2017. These beads are too small to be stopped by sewage treatment plants and, once in the waters, attract toxic chemicals and find their way into fish that eat them as if they were food. We in turn eat the fish and unknowingly ingest the toxics. The miracle is that the U.S. Congress passed a piece of environmental law. According to John Schwartz of the New York Times:

“A bill to protect the environment was introduced in the House in March. In early December, the House passed the bill. A week later, the Senate passed it as well, without changing a word and by unanimous consent, just before Congress left town on Friday. That is the strangely charmed life of the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, which sailed through Congress in an age when most legislation plods.”

As Mr. Schwartz’ piece indicates, there were many good reasons that the law was passed. First, many large manufacturers were already dropping their use of the microbeads, having learned of its environmental impact. Second, a number of states had already enacted statewide bans and others were considering them. But the state laws were inconsistent and would make doing business difficult for cosmetic firms. National legislation was better for business. Business lobby groups and the cosmetics industry supported the national ban and so there was really no significant opposition to it from anywhere.

Marine Debris is a Much Bigger Problem

Microbeads are a small part of the much larger problem of marine debris. As more people consume more products that are made of substances that do not biodegrade easily, if at all, the volume of plastics that end up in our waterways continues to grow. The cost of cleaning up the oceans is impossible to quantify, and communities near the water are spending more and more money trying to clean their beaches and prevent trash from entering the water in the first place. Last spring I advised a group of Columbia students in our MPA in Environmental Science and Policy program who worked for our local environmental agencies to quantify the costs of preventing trash from entering the waterways in New York and New Jersey. The group surveyed municipalities along the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and learned that “these municipalities spend $59,063,285 dollars a year on marine debris waste management activities. This translates to a per capita cost of $6.16, and $75,407 per square mile.”

The problem of marine debris is large and grows every day. Writing in National Geographic Laura Parker observes:

“The numbers are staggering: There are 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic debris in the ocean. Of that mass, 269,000 tons float on the surface, while some four billion plastic microfibers per square kilometer litter the deep sea. Scientists call these statistics the “wow factor” of ocean trash. The tallies, published last year in three separate scientific papers, are useful in red-flagging the scope of the problem for the public. But beyond the shock value, just how does adding up those rice-size fragments of plastic help solve the problem? Although scientists have known for decades about the accumulating mass of ocean debris and its deadly consequences for seabirds, fish, and marine animals, the science of sea trash is young and full of as-yet unsolved mysteries. Indeed, until scientists learn more about where ocean trash is, how densely plastic accumulates in different ocean ecosystems, and how it degrades, they can’t really calculate the damage it’s causing. There are still big, basic questions: As it degrades, do plastic toxins seep into the marine environment? If so, how and in what amounts?”

We know that there is a lot of junk in the ocean, but our knowledge of its environmental impact remains superficial and requires additional observation, data collection and analysis. We also need a new approach to introducing new technologies into economic production. Except for new drug and medical technologies which must be tested before they are allowed to be sold, other new technologies are introduced first and only regulated after damage is proven. The introduction of drugs conforms to the precautionary principle, while the introduction of other technologies conform to what we could call the reactionary principle: react after the fact and only if the damage is beyond question.

We are all like the canary that used to be lowered into the mine to see if the air was poisoned. If the canary came back dead, the miners were not allowed into the mine. If it came back alive the miners could go to work. In a more crowded world with more and more technology being developed that can damage living fauna, flora and beings, we need to understand the full impact of the new technologies we are developing. This requires a deeper understanding of earth systems science and a deeper understanding of the main and side effects of all new technologies.

The critique of prior testing of new technology is that it would inhibit innovation and the development of new technologies. It might do that, and inhibiting damaging technologies would be a good thing. There are already a number of constraints on innovation such as unimaginative management, inadequate finance, and inadequate institutional capacity. Adding a regulatory hurdle would slow things down a bit, but it would also reduce the unanticipated consequences of new technologies. In the case of microbeads, sewage treatment plant operators could have commented before the technology was ever used, and the same substitutes that will now replace the beads could have been used from the start. How many other easily replaceable technologies are now in use and damaging the planet? We don’t know and have no way of easily finding out.

While policy attention is focused on large, world-scale issues such as climate change, the planet continues to die the death of a thousand cuts. We ignore the day-to-day destruction that derives from an economic paradigm that has not yet internalized the need to assess the environmental impacts of new technologies and products. It is clear that the hunger for economic growth and wealth pushes business and governments to ignore environmental impacts that are considered an inevitable byproduct of development. But this fails to account for the costs that will inevitably be borne when the damage must be cleaned up. A more careful production process with pollution control technologies may cost more in the short run, but it saves money in the long run. And to the degree that businesses are convinced that they must adhere to environmental standards to avoid sanctions, they will push their engineers and production managers to develop innovative methods of controlling environmental impacts.

End of pipeline effluent standards and end of smokestack emission standards are necessary to ensure environmental quality. But so too is prior testing of new technologies and products before they are permitted into the marketplace. While some toxic substances degrade and pose little long-term harm to ecosystems, others are highly persistent and find their way up the food chain and can affect human health. The success of the microbead legislation is important and indicates that it is possible for the United States Congress to find common ground and ban unneeded toxics. The deeper change needed is far tougher and is a long way off. We need to spend more money to better understand the impact of technology on the natural environment and human health. And we must ensure that new technologies are only introduced after we have assessed their impact on the planet.

See also: Plastic Debris in the Environment

Farm Greenhouse Plastics Abound

Agricultural Plastic Recycling Effort to Begin December 9, 2015

“Rows of White Tubes line many Pendleton County fields as farmers prepare for winter feeding season.  An area recycling program is aimed at disposing of the used plastic in an environmentally friendly way.”

>>> From an Article in The Pendleton Times, Franklin, WV, November 26, 2015

According to a study published by Penn State University (PSU) in 2014, the agriculture industy uses hundreds of millions of pounds of plastic and the amount is expected to rise.  Plastic allows farmers to increase production and decrease costs.  The most common use of plastic, locally, is for silage tubes, bale wrap and net wrap, all of which result in less spoilage of forages and increased product.

For many years landfills have been the popular “dumping place” for these products.  On-farm disposal can create unsightly piles and/or havens for rodents such as mice and snakes.

In the PSU study, 60% of the farmers surveyed indicated that they disposed of the used plastic either by burning on site or by hauling the waste to a landfill. Unfortunately, burning or burying the plastic on site may require a permit and landfill space is rapidly disappearing. (In 1979, there were 18,500 landfills nationwide but by 2009 the number had dropped to 1,908).

Luckily, Pendleton County farmers now have an environmentally responsible solution to eliminate those white mounds that accumulate near feeding areas this time of year.  The Region VIII Solid Waste Authority, WV-DEP, WV Farm Bureau and West Virginia University Extension Service are continuing a project to collect, free of charge, certain agricultural plastic for recycling.

Recycling takes the plastic from waste and returns it to the manufacturing process.  Used plastic is collected at the drop-off and shipped to a recycler where it is separated, cleaned and pelletized or shredded before being reprocessed.  The reprocessed plastic is used to make such products as trash bags, flower pots, park benches, industrial pallets and composite lumber.

However, as with most recycling projects it does take a little planning.  Agricultural plastics that can be recycled include: silage bags, net wrap, silage wrap, bunk silo covers and greenhouse plastic.  These plastics should be kept relatively clean (no mud or manure) and dry. It should be free of as much vegetative material as possible, in bundles that can be handled by one person, and collected and stored off the ground and in a dry location before delivery.  New wrap of all colors can be recycled, however, the colors must be separated.  Rock, soil and/or manure covered plastic should not be delivered as excessively dirty or contaminated material will not be accepted for recycling.

Unfortunately, this project cannot accept plastic bale twine, row covers, nursery pots, irrigation tubing, plastic jugs or plastic bottles.  Unacceptable materials will be immediately returned to the hauler.

Starting in December, agricultural plastic will be accepted for recycling at the Petersburg Transfer Station on the second Wednesday of the month from 8 AM to 3 PM.

For more information on the Agricultural Plastic Recycling Program in Region VIII, contact David Seymour at the Pendleton County Extension Office.

<< An article from last year about this program is on-line >>

Appalachian Shale Cracker Enterprise (ASCENT)

WV-DEP Accepts Voluntary Remediation Program Application from ASCENT

UPDATE 8/26/2014, From TheNewsCenter, WTAP, Parkersburg, WV

Environmental officials are calling it a promising step toward bringing the proposed cracker plant to Wood County. The West Virginia DEP accepted a Voluntary Remediation Program application on August 25, 2014. The application is from the Texas company exploring the development of an ethane cracker plant in Washington.

ASCENT is hoping to get a certificate from the DEP as both parties work together to find health risks associated with the cracker plant and set standards for work to be done at the site.

“It will bring jobs to the community and through the volunteer remediation program they will be able to remediate their contamination of the site,” says Erin Brittain, with the WVDEP. Brittain says it should take about a month for the application to be reviewed and approved.

Then, ASCENT and the DEP would sign a volunteer remediation agreement, recognizing the approval of the application.

____________________

The site consists of 363 acres, 194 of which are currently owned by ASCENT. Some 169 acres currently owned by Sabic will be transferred to ASCENT in November 2015. The West Virginia DEP says all of the property will be used for an industrial facility with an ethane cracker and three polyethylene plants.

_______________________

Update 6/04/2014

Mark Hall is a West Virginia native. He also manages a Cabell county operation for Braskem, one of two companies involved with Odebrecht on development of an ethane cracker a few miles south of Parkersburg.  While he did not have new details for the Polymer Alliance Zone, he says the second of three phases of the plant’s development has so far been successful.

“The financing is huge,” Hall told the PAZ’s members. “We can’t ask for money without raw material. At the end of the day, we have to prove we can make product once we build this facility, once we have some customers. We have to have some kind of infrastructure that says, ‘now you’ve got the ethane, now you can get it to the facility.”

A recent deal with Antero Resources helped to ensure Odebrecht had those raw materials.

Hall spoke to the annual meeting of the PAZ’s annual meeting, and the first since last November’s announcement of the cracker coming to West Virginia. In spite of the positive announcements, actual construction is still a long way off, but the signs of progress toward that construction is encouraging to both business and the community.

___________________

UPDATE 5/15/2014

The Appalachian Shale Cracker Enterprise LLC (ASCENT) is seeking an air quality permit and a permit to evaluate the site of the proposed plant under the state’s Voluntary Remediation Program:

Six months and cracker plant plans are still moving forward. Last November 14th Odebrecht announced plans to build an ethane “cracker” in Wood County. The latest development is that Ascent, the company occupying the complex, has now submitted applications for two permits.

One is an air quality permit and the other is for an evaluation under West Virginia’s remediation program. Also since last fall, ownership of the current site of the Sabic plant in Washington, West Virginia was transferred to Ascent last January.

One issue involves the land Sabic had allowed the Tri-C program to use for its ball fields. It’s hoped a new site can be found for the baseball and softball teams to play. The permits are part of an ongoing feasibility study for plant construction.

The ASCENT parent, Odebrecht, announced plans last fall to develop a cracker facility, three polyethylene plants and associated infrastructure for water treatment and energy co-generation in Wood County. Cracker plants crack or convert ethane into ethylene, a widely used chemical compound. (Ethane is a byproduct of natural gas drilling & fracking, in some regions of the Marcellus shale territory.)

Placards for Hazardous Materials

Petrochemicals will give W.Va. more harm than help

Opinion-Editorial by S. Tom Bond, Charleston Gazette, May 4, 2014

Tom Witt’s article “Petrochemicals can boost state” (March 23) is a fascinating picture of economics cut loose from reality. The reality includes real costs not mentioned in his article and serious morality issues.

One is global warming. If you don’t believe in it after the American Association for Advancement of Science, the world’s foremost scientific organization, the Royalty Society of the United Kingdom, NASA, and the U.S. Military have published strong statements that it is happening and it is caused by industrial man, you are in a class with people who believe in extraterrestrials, black helicopters and faith healing.

The amount of waste being produced is so great the EPA had to throw up its hands and exempt it from federal law. Ten barrels of waste for each barrel of oil or oil equivalent energy. If it had to be handled like other waste producers’ offcast it would not be economically feasible to do shale drilling. Landfills are overflowing, and so much liquid waste is pumped below the surface earthquakes are occurring in some places.

The industry doesn’t have to put up bonds sufficient to plug the wells. Judging by West Virginia history from the earlier gas and oil drilling and coal mining, operators will find a way to wiggle out of it, and the public will have to pay. If so, it will get done later when it is far more expensive. Maybe these deep holes in the earth will just be abandoned for all time.

Then there are the health effects. The shale drilling technology burst onto the scene without the usual “scale up” that attends most industrial processes. Health effects have never been studied by the industry. Now that it is going on a huge scale, there is a very large number of anecdotal reports, and the industry has public relations going at full scale, not to deny them, but to cover them up, and to make it difficult for scientists to do research on air, water and noise pollution. One organization in Pennsylvania has a list of over 5,100 health incidents. Numerous scientists are looking for access to make measurements and people to run tests on.

It is dangerous business. The industry has eight times the accident rates other industries have. Exploding pipelines and huge train wreck fires abound. Insurance companies pay for this. In some areas they are refusing to insure farms where fracking takes place, because they don’t want to be caught with property losses.

The public is exposed to constant boosterism advertising and public relations which neglects these matters. I suggest Dr. Witt’s op-ed is far short of the whole reality of shale drilling. It is a narrow vision that will help some West Virginians a little, out-of-state investors a lot, but hurt far more honest citizens than the number it will help. It will hurt farm, forest, game and fish, clean water, the retirement and tourist industry essentially forever.

These are all very real externalized costs.

>>> S. Thomas Bond, of Jane Lew, is a retired teacher with a Ph.D. in inorganic chemistry, a member of the Guardians of the West Fork and the Monongahela Area Watersheds Compact. <<<

Horsehead plant site on Ohio River

Beaver County firms place wager on Shell building petrochemical plant

From an Article by Timothy Puko and David Conti, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,  March 18, 2014

After eight years of up and down business, Ed Vescovi is hoping the best is yet to come for the dormant biodiesel plant he oversees on the banks of the Ohio River in Beaver County. There are plans to revive the site with as many as 85 new workers, including a new river dock and wastewater treatment plant for Marcellus shale gas drillers. The ultimate bet is even bigger, that a multibillion-dollar petrochemical plant Royal Dutch Shell may build just down the road could help turn the largely wooded and hilly site into a booming industrial park.

The chance to get an early position on spin-off business from what would be a largely new industry in Western Pennsylvania was a big motivator for the site’s new owner, Weavertown Transport Leasing Inc. It paid more than $2 million to buy the 125 acres in October.

All around Beaver County leaders are seeing a similar push: Industrial parks are beefing up, engineering companies are moving in, and new offices, hotels and housing are on the way. While many Pittsburgh businesses are still hanging back until Shell decides, it’s clear that some are already moving fast to try and make it big.

Shell leaders have never committed to building during two years of deliberating since they picked Pennsylvania as the potential host. It has an option to buy the Horsehead Holding Corp. zinc smelter site, and, after three extensions, its final deadline to buy is coming next month, County Commissioner Joe Spanik said.

Shell leaders will be updating a working group of local and state officials in Hopewell, Spanik and Commissioner Dennis Nichols said. The parent company has been facing sagging profits and last week its global leaders said they will cut capital spending by a fifth and pull back from some shale development in the United States.

Shell has, however, continued to invest millions into Beaver County. It spent $1.87 million in December to buy the 5.5 acres home of Cubbyhole Self Storage on Frankfort Road to help reroute Route 18 along the Horsehead site. Shell talked to other property owners in the area, the seller said. Shell is also paying for ongoing demolition work to help clear part of the Horsehead site, both companies have said.

At Ambridge Regional Distribution & Manufacturing Center, 11 miles up the Ohio River from the Shell site, they’re planning for a 25 to 30 mile zone for spin-off businesses, said Gene Pash, president of site owner Value Ambridge Properties Inc. Its new plan maps out the addition of as many as six new buildings to provide top-class office and workspace for expanding industry, Pash said.  “We’re moving forward at warp speed,” he said..

The region’s drilling boom has helped give business a foundation to build on. The Weavertown corporation is moving up emergency spill response equipment and some of its stone business into a satellite operation to serve the drillers increasingly working north of Pittsburgh. That type of business is growing enough to justify a somewhat speculative investment, fostering belief that it will turn a profit even if Shell never builds, Weavertown’s CEO Fuchs said.

The company is planning $15 million to $20 million more to develop the whole site, according to county commissioners who helped Weavertown apply for state grants. “With any growth strategy, you have to be in early because then you’ll get short-listed more quickly.” Fuchs said. “We’re opportunistic.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Shell’s newly completed analysis of its second half of 2013 performance in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale gas operation, acquired in 2010 for a reported $4.7 billion, showed that the “vast majority” of its 630 wells are underperforming compared to its peers. In one county, its wells were producing at half the rate of competitors. An independent energy analyst, who estimated that Shell’s wells are likely to be uneconomic even with a recent rise in US gas prices, has meanwhile predicted that the international oil and petrochemicals group will not proceed with its proposed ethane cracker in Pennsylvania, according to www.Plasteurope.com