Written July 2026
The U.S. EPA is considering changing how plastics recycling plants that use pyrolysis technology are regulated under the Clean Air Act so they would no longer fall under the definition of municipal solid waste combustion units.
“Revising the definition would clarify that the OSWI (Other Solid Waste Incinerators) rule does not regulate pyrolysis units used in advanced recycling operations,” according to a statement from the EPA.
America’s Plastic Makers, composed of the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division and its member companies, applauded the proposed change. However, many environmental advocacy groups are concerned about the possible impact on air pollution and public health.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin talked about what he sees as the benefits of advanced recycling during testimony on April 28 before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (His testimony on advanced recycling begins at 1 hour and 32 minutes).
“This is something that we need to be leaning into more as a country,” Zeldin said.
He mentioned visiting an advanced recycling facility in Baytown, Texas, and about projects in other parts of the world.
“There’s a lot of advanced recycling projects that are getting ramped up in Europe; they’re getting ramped up in Asia, and we have not for years been heading in the right direction as far as advanced recycling, but now there’s an opportunity to turn it around.
“There’s a way through advanced recycling where you can take plastic, instead of sending it to a landfill, you can now break it down to its raw chemical compound, and I think that’s a heck of a lot better than sending this plastic to a landfill, to instead put it to good use.”
Zeldin, in an EPA press release and an op-ed that appeared in The Hill in April, said the agency was accepting public comments on a rule that would recognize advanced recycling as manufacturing under the Clean Air Act rather than waste management. He said that the EPA is looking to protect the environment but cut unnecessary regulatory reporting burdens. He said that advanced recycling could present economic opportunities.
The EPA’s public comment period on the proposed rule change affecting pyrolysis units used in advanced recycling operations concluded on May 4.
The proposed rule is titled: Standards for Air Curtain Incinerators That Only Burn Wood Wastes, Yard Wastes and Clean Lumber; Provision for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Temporary Use Incinerators and Air Curtain Incinerators Used in Disaster Recovery.
The EPA collected comments on both sides of the issue, and those comments are available online.
Industry groups weigh in on proposed change
Numerous industry groups expressed support for the proposed change.
“We need to increase recycling in the United States, and that means expanding the system so more types of plastic can be collected, sorted and made into new materials,” Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, said in comments emailed from the press office for the American Chemistry Council and America’s Plastic Makers. “One of the hardest categories to recycle today is flexible packaging and film, such as pouches, chip bags and food packaging. Pyrolysis is one advanced recycling technology that can complement mechanical recycling by helping process some of these harder-to-recycle plastics.”
Upgrade the status quo. Find solutions, not just materials. Learn more here!
Pyrolysis uses heat in a no- or low-oxygen environment to convert plastics into molecular building blocks or hydrocarbon feedstocks that can be refined and used to make new products, he said. Proponents of advanced recycling say that pyrolysis can give materials that might otherwise be landfilled or incinerated a meaningful new life.
The American Chemistry Council, in its comments to the EPA, wrote: “Plastic pyrolysis used in advanced recycling should not be regulated as municipal waste combustion or incineration. Clear regulations stating such will correctly reflect the scientific, legal, and operational realities of advanced recycling processes and ensure consistency with the Clean Air Act (CAA).”
The ACC later in its comments wrote that: “Advanced recycling, including plastic pyrolysis, is not combustion, but rather a manufacturing process that converts post-use plastics into valuable chemical feedstocks for new products. Unlike incineration, which is designed to destroy waste and reduce volume through combustion, pyrolysis conserves material value by transforming plastics into oils, gases, and other outputs that are further refined into new plastics or chemicals.”
The Plastics Industry Association, a trade association that supports the entire plastics supply chain, also weighed in on advanced recycling pyrolysis units.
“Plastic pyrolysis should be removed from regulation under any CAA § 129 incinerator standards because pyrolysis is not a combustion or incineration process,” according to the association’s written comments to the EPA.
“Increasing the recovery of plastics is good for American families, the U.S. economy and national sustainability and circularity goals. According to a recent analysis, if 50 percent of plastics in municipal solid waste streams were diverted from landfills to mechanical and advanced recycling, it would translate into more than 173,000 jobs with an annual payroll of $12.8 billion. It also would result in $48.7 billion in annual U.S. economic input. Post-use plastic is a valuable, untapped resource.”
Environmental advocates offer a different point of view
Beyond Plastics, an organization focused on reducing plastic pollution, said that the proposed regulatory change would have major implications for air quality, public health, and environmental justice.
The group said the language about plastics pyrolysis recycling operations is “buried” in one paragraph of a draft rule on air curtain incinerators.
“Beyond procedural concerns, we strongly object to the EPA’s efforts to redefine pyrolysis under the Clean Air Act,” Beyond Plastics wrote in its comments to the EPA.
“Our research and technical analysis underscore that plastics pyrolysis units generate a complex mixture of hazardous air pollutants comparable to, and in some cases exceeding, those emitted by conventional waste incineration,” the group stated.
Beyond Plastics said that Section 129 of the Clean Air Act, under which plastic pyrolysis recycling is currently regulated, sets strong emission limits and monitoring requirements for waste processing units. “There is no other section of the Clean Air Act that adequately regulates these facilities,” according to a page on their website.
The organization elaborated on the pollutants that concern it in its written comments to the EPA.
“Our review of available emissions data, permit applications, and independent studies finds that pyrolysis of plastic waste can release significant quantities of carcinogenic and toxic compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX), as well as dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals,” wrote Beyond Plastics.
Beyond Plastics raised concerns about environmental justice and public health impacts. It concluded its comments by stating: “The EPA should not redefine pyrolysis.”
The Environmental Defense Fund had many of the same concerns.
“Removing these units from OSWI [Other Solid Waste Incinerators] coverage would be legally unsupported, scientifically unjustified, and would leave communities, particularly those already overburdened by industrial pollution, without meaningful protection from a well-documented set of toxic chemicals,” the group wrote in its comments to the EPA.
The EDF stated that pyrolysis/combustion of waste plastic is disposal that involves combustion, not manufacturing.
The EPA is reviewing the submitted comments.
“Public comments received will help inform the development of a proposed rule on advanced recycling, which EPA is working towards expeditiously,” according to a statement provided by the EPA Press Office.
The views, opinions and technical analyses presented here are those of the author or advertiser, and are not necessarily those of ULProspector.com or UL Solutions. The appearance of this content in the UL Prospector Knowledge Center does not constitute an endorsement by UL Solutions or its affiliates.
All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced without prior authorization from UL Solutions or the content author.
The content has been made available for informational and educational purposes only. While the editors of this site may verify the accuracy of its content from time to time, we assume no responsibility for errors made by the author, editorial staff or any other contributor.
UL Solutions does not make any representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness or completeness of the content. UL Solutions does not warrant the performance, effectiveness or applicability of sites listed or linked to in any content.
