Bills
Pyrolysis / Advanced Recycling
Bill #: S.525
Session: 2021-2022
Topics:
Waste
This bill was introduced in 2021 by Senator Gambrell (R-Anderson) in order to attract the Pyrolysis, or advanced recycling, industry into the state. The industry claims to convert plastic waste into fuel and other usable substances without harming the environment. S.525 exempted the pyrolysis industry from the State’s solid waste regulations despite the potential environmental and public health dangers of the pyrolysis process and the large amount of plastic waste flowing through pyrolysis plants every Year. This bill garnered a lot of debate and there were several amendments introduced – some of which were successful and others not (see vote descriptions for details). In the end, a conference committee was convened when the House and Senate could not agree on the sunset for financial assurance mechanisms and the bill was eventually passed into law. While we are saddened to see a path to pyrolysis in our state, we were instrumental in amending the bill to include critical and precedent-setting guardrails that will protect South Carolinians – including the first time that the South Carolina legislature has provided DHEC the ability to review the compliance history of an applicant when granting permits and the first time any state legislature has required bonding for this new industry.
How Legislators Voted on S.525
Votes:
- + Pro Conservation Vote
- - Anti Conservation Vote
- EA Excused Absence
- NV Not Voting
- NA Not in Office
- A Abstained (Conflict of Interest)
S.525 Pyrolysis (Table Senate Amendment 7 – Community Assessment)
This proposed amendment would have required applicants to conduct an assessment on the health and environmental impacts of a proposed facility to the surrounding community. This amendment was tabled by a vote of 32-11 on the Senate floor during debate. The successful tabling vote stopped the amendment from advancing. This was a Pro-Conservation Amendment that failed. A “No” vote against tabling is the pro-conservation vote. We supported the amendment and opposed its tabling.
- + Pro Conservation Vote
- - Anti Conservation Vote
- EA Excused Absence
- NV Not Voting
- NA Not in Office
- A Abstained (Conflict of Interest)
S.525 Pyrolysis (Table Senate Amendment 6 – Financial Assurance)
This amendment established financial assurance requirements for a pyrolysis facility, which kept any potential clean-up costs off the shoulders of the taxpayers. Though this amendment was tabled by a vote of 27-15, financial assurance requirements were a part of the final piece of legislation. This was a Pro-Conservation Amendment that failed. A “No” vote against tabling is the pro-conservation vote. We supported this amendment and opposed its tabling.
- + Pro Conservation Vote
- - Anti Conservation Vote
- EA Excused Absence
- NV Not Voting
- NA Not in Office
- A Abstained (Conflict of Interest)
S.525 Pyrolysis (Table House Amendment 2 – Financial Assurance)
This amendment set a financial assurances requirement for five years after a permit is obtained. This will protect taxpayers from financial responsibility of cleaning up the site if something goes wrong. After a motion was made to table this amendment, it narrowly escaped that fate by a vote of 51-61 in favor of keeping up the debate. Eventually this amendment made it into the final bill. This was a Pro-Conservation Amendment that succeeded. A “No” vote against tabling is the pro-conservation vote. We supported this amendment and opposed its tabling.
- + Pro Conservation Vote
- - Anti Conservation Vote
- EA Excused Absence
- NV Not Voting
- NA Not in Office
- A Abstained (Conflict of Interest)
S.525 Pyrolysis (Table House Amendment 1 – Community Assessment)
This proposed amendment would have required applicants to conduct an assessment of the health and environmental impact of a proposed facility on the community. This amendment was tabled by a vote of 66-47 on the House floor during debate. The successful tabling vote stopped the amendment from advancing. This was a Pro-Conservation Amendment that failed. A “No” vote against tabling is the pro-conservation vote. We supported the amendment and opposed its tabling.