Committee hears S.139: packaging needs assessment and proposed ban on plastic feedstock for chemical conversion technologies

The Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee heard a detailed presentation of S.139, a two-part bill that would require ANR to complete a needs assessment on packaging management in Vermont and would prohibit the use of plastic as feedstock in specified chemical conversion technologies.

Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, testified in support of studying packaging reduction and EPR options and described health and environmental concerns linked to plastic and microplastics. Burns said, "This is an area that we may have disagreements on other things. I think there's an opportunity for broad reading... almost everybody I talk with thinks that they are exposed to too much, particularly, single use plastic waste." He outlined public-health concerns tied to additives such as BPA, phthalates and PFAS, and cited a February Nature study the committee discussed, noting research that detected microplastics in human tissues.

Committee counsel Michael Grama reviewed the statutory text that would direct ANR to complete the needs assessment, list goals for evaluating reuse, recycling and disposal, and identify barriers and markets for post-consumer recycled content. Counsel described the bill's second section as a prohibition on using plastics "as a feedstock in chemical conversion technologies" and read a non-exclusive list of processes the bill would cover: "Gasification, pyrolysis, solvolysis, hydro-pyrolysis, methanolysis, glycolysis, enzymes used to break down, solid-based purification" and related methods.

Counsel and witnesses discussed the statutory scope and the practical threshold question of where those technologies typically operate: the draft limits the ban to facilities that require solid-waste-facility permitting or certification by ANR. Counsel said committee members should consider whether the prohibition should cover industrial manufacturers or only permitted solid-waste facilities because "those facilities may not need a solid waste facility certification." Senator and committee members pressed whether the draft would prohibit conventional recycling; counsel and advocates clarified it would not target mechanical recycling of PET or HDPE but would focus on high-tech chemical-conversion processes intended to convert plastics into fuels or substitutes.

Advocates argued chemical recycling is functionally a form of turning plastics into fuel with attendant emissions and toxic byproducts and that the state should prioritize reduction, reuse and conventional recycling. Burns asked the committee to consider EPR and reduction-oriented policies and said Vermont should review models from other states and countries as part of the needs assessment.

Committee members requested additional drafting clarification about the definition of "facility" and whether the statute should reach industrial processes outside ANR's solid-waste permitting authority. No formal vote was taken; counsel said he would return with language options and additional scope alternatives in a future draft.