![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ulprospector.ul.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SustainabilityGlobe_300.jpg\")
<\/p>\nWritten July 2026<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cRevising the definition would clarify that the OSWI (Other Solid Waste Incinerators) rule does not regulate pyrolysis units used in advanced recycling operations,\u201d according to a statement from the EPA.<\/p>\n
America\u2019s Plastic Makers, composed of the American Chemistry Council\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin talked about what he sees as the benefits of advanced recycling during testimony on April 28<\/span><\/a> before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (His testimony on advanced recycling begins at 1 hour and 32 minutes).<\/p>\n \u201cThis is something that we need to be leaning into more as a country,\u201d Zeldin said.<\/p>\n He mentioned visiting an advanced recycling facility in Baytown, Texas, and about projects in other parts of the world.<\/p>\n \u201cThere’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.<\/p>\n \u201cThere’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.\u201d<\/p>\n Zeldin, in an EPA press release<\/span><\/a> 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.<\/p>\n The EPA\u2019s public comment period on the proposed rule change affecting pyrolysis units used in advanced recycling operations concluded on May 4.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The EPA collected comments on both sides of the issue, and those comments are available online<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n Industry groups weigh in on proposed change<\/b><\/p>\n Numerous industry groups expressed support for the proposed change.<\/p>\n \u201cWe 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,\u201d Ross Eisenberg, president of America\u2019s Plastic Makers<\/span><\/a>, said in comments emailed from the press office for the American Chemistry Council and America\u2019s Plastic Makers. \u201cOne of the hardest categories to recycle today is flexible packaging<\/a> and film, such as pouches, chip bags and food packaging. Pyrolysis is one advanced recycling technology that can complement mechanical recycling<\/a> by helping process some of these harder-to-recycle plastics.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The American Chemistry Council, in its comments to the EPA<\/span><\/a>, wrote: \u201cPlastic 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).\u201d<\/p>\n The ACC later in its comments wrote that: \u201cAdvanced 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.\u201d<\/p>\n The Plastics Industry Association<\/span><\/a>, a trade association that supports the entire plastics supply chain<\/a>, also weighed in on advanced recycling pyrolysis units.<\/p>\n \u201cPlastic pyrolysis should be removed from regulation under any CAA \u00a7 129 incinerator standards because pyrolysis is not a combustion or incineration process,\u201d according to the association\u2019s written comments <\/span><\/a>to the EPA.<\/p>\n \u201cIncreasing 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Environmental advocates offer a different point of view<\/b><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The group said the language about plastics pyrolysis recycling operations is \u201cburied\u201d<\/span><\/a> in one paragraph of a draft rule on air curtain incinerators.<\/p>\n \u201cBeyond procedural concerns, we strongly object to the EPA\u2019s efforts to redefine pyrolysis under the Clean Air Act,\u201d Beyond Plastics wrote <\/span><\/a>in its comments to the EPA.<\/p>\n \u201cOur 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,\u201d the group stated.<\/p>\n 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. \u201cThere is no other section of the Clean Air Act that adequately regulates these facilities,\u201d according to a page on their website<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n The organization elaborated on the pollutants that concern it in its written comments to the EPA.<\/p>\n \u201cOur 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,\u201d wrote Beyond Plastics.<\/p>\n Beyond Plastics raised concerns about environmental justice and public health impacts. It concluded its comments by stating: \u201cThe EPA should not redefine pyrolysis.\u201d<\/p>\n The Environmental Defense Fund had many of the same concerns.<\/p>\n \u201cRemoving 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,\u201d the group wrote in its comments<\/span><\/a> to the EPA.<\/p>\n The EDF stated that pyrolysis\/combustion of waste plastic is disposal that involves combustion, not manufacturing.<\/p>\n The EPA is reviewing the submitted comments.<\/p>\n \u201cPublic comments received will help inform the development of a proposed rule on advanced recycling, which EPA is working towards expeditiously,\u201d according to a statement provided by the EPA Press Office.<\/p>\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nUpgrade the status quo. Find solutions, not just materials. Learn more here<\/a>!<\/h3>\n
\n