EPA may ease regulation of chemical plastic recycling, and
environmentalists worry
[April 16, 2026]
By JENNIFER McDERMOTT
The Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering whether facilities
that recycle plastic chemically should be held to the same strict air
pollution standards as incinerators.
The possible change is alarming environmental advocates who say it would
lead to more dangerous pollution spewing into communities, with fewer or
no checks at the federal level. The plastics industry disputes that,
saying it would clear up confusion while still controlling emissions.
The world is pumping millions of tons of plastic pollution into the
environment every year. While dozens of countries and many environmental
groups have urged caps on production, industry and several big
oil-producing countries have resisted, arguing instead for improvements
in reuse and recycling.
Chemical recycling uses heat or chemicals to break down plastics. The
main method, a process known as pyrolysis, has long been regulated as
incineration by the Clean Air Act. The EPA limits emissions from
incinerators of nine air pollutants, including toxic particulates, heavy
metals and dioxins.
The agency says a potential new rule could instead recognize pyrolysis
as manufacturing.
The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, has long argued for
such a change.
“The definition of incineration is to destroy it, right? You’re
literally trying to make it go away,” said Ross Eisenberg, president of
America’s Plastic Makers, who leads ACC’s plastics advocacy. “That’s not
what they’re doing here. They are trying to preserve it and recover the
materials, which is recycling, which is manufacturing.”
Judith Enck, a former EPA regional administrator who now heads up Beyond
Plastics, opposes what she said would be a “much weaker level of
environmental protection.”
“Chemical recycling companies know that if they want to operate, they
need to get this essential Clean Air Act permit and they don’t like it,”
she said. “They have spent decades trying to convince EPA to change the
rules of the game. Republican and Democratic administrations have
declined to do this. But they have hit the jackpot with the Trump
administration.”
Alarm over changing how pyrolysis is regulated
The EPA regulates pyrolysis under section 129 of the act, which reduces
air pollution from four categories of solid waste incineration units.
The agency told The Associated Press that a final rule in 2005 that
included “pyrolysis/combustion units” under that section was vague and
caused confusion for the industry.
EPA said it's taking public comment for a potential rule that could
recognize pyrolysis as manufacturing under a different section, 111, of
the Clean Air Act.
John Walke, who leads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s national
clean air advocacy, said Section 111 doesn't regulate as many pollutants
as 129. He also argued that EPA's plan is skipping crucial steps in a
lengthy, required rulemaking process.
Walke also said the EPA move would amount to the immediate deregulation
of these facilities under the act. He said it would take several years
to follow the legal process to regulate the industry under another
section, leaving a gap where no federal emissions standards would apply.
“You could have a facility that was controlled on a Monday, preventing
those hazardous air pollutants from being emitted into the atmosphere,
and on Tuesday, the facility would have legal permission to turn off
installed pollution controls to allow the unlimited release of hazardous
air pollution into the same community that was better protected on
Monday,” he said. “Why would they do that? Why would they turn off an
installed pollution control device? Because it costs money to operate
them.”
[to top of second column]
|
The Alterra Energy plant that recycles plastics back into a
fluid that is used in the manufacturing of plastics, sits in Akron,
Ohio, Sept. 8, 2022. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic, File)
 Eisenberg disputed that. He said
other sections of the Clean Air Act would still apply, and
facilities get state permits, so the emissions would still be
controlled and surrounding communities would be safe. They are “so
heavily regulated,” Eisenberg said.
Recycling rates for plastic waste are tiny
More than 90% of plastics aren't recycled, according to the American
Chemistry Council. It promises that chemical, or advanced, recycling
can change that. As a complement to traditional mechanical
recycling, chemical recycling can help dramatically reduce the
amount of waste sent to landfills while generating a diverse range
of products, the ACC says.
The process breaks plastics down into liquid and gas to produce an
oil-like mixture or basic chemicals, that can be used to make new
plastics or fuels. It's like “unbaking a cake,” Eisenberg said.
Environmental groups say advanced recycling is waste disposal, not
recycling, and a distraction from real solutions like producing and
using less plastic.
There are six pyrolysis plants, operating in Ohio, Texas, North
Carolina, Indiana and Georgia, plus one under construction in
Arizona and another in West Virginia, and a small test project in
Maryland, according to the American Chemistry Council. The ACC has
been lobbying states and Congress to pass laws to regulate chemical
recycling as manufacturing. Twenty-five states now do, and
legislation is pending in Congress.
Despite that legislative success, Eisenberg said the number of
proposals to build these plants has dwindled in recent years, in
part because of the permitting process.
“I often ask people to take a step back,” he said. “Do you want more
recycling? If the answer is yes, then we should do what we can to
make sure that you can bring more recycling online.”
Eisenberg said they've made clear to the Trump administration that
revising the Clean Air Act is a priority. EPA Administrator Lee
Zeldin toured ExxonMobil's Baytown, Texas, facility to see chemical
recycling in person last year.
Critic says notice of possible change was buried
In March, the EPA published a notice requesting comment on a
proposed rule to consolidate regulations for another type of
incinerator, with a small section soliciting comment on removing the
reference to pyrolysis. The EPA mentioned it at the end of its press
release on air curtain incinerators, too.
Enck said it was a bombshell paragraph, buried in a rulemaking
notice. The EPA dismissed the criticism, highlighting the press
release.
At a public hearing last week, many people urged the EPA to keep
pyrolysis units regulated as incinerators, including about a dozen
speakers from the nonprofit Moms Clean Air Force. Kiya Stanford, the
group's Georgia state organizer, said in her testimony that changing
it “feels like a move to prioritize polluters over people,” offering
the plastics industry a cheap way to make waste disappear from sight
by spewing it into the air as toxic pollution.
The agency proposed a similar change in 2020, during President
Donald Trump's first term. The Biden administration withdrew the
proposed modification.
Walke said that if the EPA finalizes the rollback now, the NRDC
would plan to challenge it in court.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
