{"id":505735,"date":"2026-05-27T20:38:15","date_gmt":"2026-05-27T20:38:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/505735\/"},"modified":"2026-05-27T20:38:15","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T20:38:15","slug":"the-epa-is-changing-the-rules-for-plastic-recycling-plants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/505735\/","title":{"rendered":"The EPA Is Changing the Rules for Plastic Recycling Plants"},"content":{"rendered":"

On March 20, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule change that could fundamentally shift how the federal government regulates a controversial type of plastic recycling called pyrolysis, also known as \u201cadvanced recycling<\/a>.\u201d Currently, the EPA treats pyrolysis plants as incinerators, restricting the release of toxic chemicals. The proposed rule would redefine them as factories, altering longstanding pollution controls.<\/p>\n

Though it may seem minor, this rule change would weaken key pollution protections for pyrolysis plants. The result could be increased toxic emissions, with the burden falling on nearby communities\u2014often low-income or predominantly Black, Latino, or Indigenous neighborhoods.<\/p>\n

What is pyrolysis?<\/p>\n

Pyrolysis involves heating plastic to very high temperatures in a container with little or no oxygen, preventing it from burning as it melts. The plastic breaks down into an oily liquid that can be used to make fuel, or it can be mixed back into the process that creates new plastic. The plastics industry calls this \u201cadvanced recycling\u201d or \u201cchemical recycling.\u201d Environmental groups, such as the Ocean Conservancy<\/a>, have called the process \u201cthe latest plastics industry deception.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are six pyrolysis plants running in the United States today, in Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, and Georgia. More are being built in Arizona and West Virginia. The industry wants to build many more, but says strict EPA rules make it hard to get permits.<\/p>\n

Why the rule change matters<\/p>\n

The Clean Air Act is the federal law that limits air pollution. One part of it \u2014 Section 129 \u2014 sets strict rules for incinerators. It requires them to limit nine kinds of pollutants, including dioxins, heavy metals, and tiny particles that lodge deep in human lungs. Pyrolysis plants have been covered by these rules since 2005. The EPA\u2019s new proposal would move them from Section 129 to Section 111, which covers fewer pollutants.<\/p>\n

John Walke, a clean air expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Associated Press<\/a> that the timing is the real problem. Removing the old rule would happen quickly. Writing a new one takes years. In between, he said, a plant could legally turn off its pollution controls.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou 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,\u201d Walke said. The reason a company would do that, he added, is simple: running pollution control equipment costs money.<\/p>\n

James Pew of Earthjustice<\/a>, a group that takes environmental cases to court, put it more bluntly to Inside Climate News<\/a>: \u201cAs a practical matter, this definition change would mean EPA is completely deregulating a whole class of incinerators, these so-called pyrolysis units. And their pollution is really toxic.\u201d<\/p>\n

What the plastics industry says<\/p>\n

The American Chemistry Council, which represents plastic companies, has lobbied for this change for years. Ross Eisenberg, who leads its plastics group, told the Associated Press<\/a> that pyrolysis is not the same as burning. \u201cThe definition of incineration is to destroy it, right? You\u2019re literally trying to make it go away,\u201d he said. \u201cThat\u2019s not what they\u2019re doing here. They are trying to preserve it and recover the materials, which is recycling, which is manufacturing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Eisenberg argues that chemical recycling plants are already heavily regulated, citing other parts of the Clean Air Act that would still cover them, as well as requirements associated with state-level permits.<\/p>\n

What scientists have actually found<\/p>\n

The science on pyrolysis is at best mixed and can be partisan. A 2023 study<\/a> by the Department of Energy\u2019s Argonne National Laboratory, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, found that mixing even a small amount of pyrolysis oil into new plastic production cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 18% to 23% compared to making plastic from scratch. The researchers used real operating data from eight U.S. pyrolysis facilities between 2017 and 2021.<\/p>\n

But a 2025 paper<\/a> in ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering concludes that, depending on the size of the plant and how its emissions are measured, the same process can produce anywhere from 28% less to 30% more greenhouse gas emissions than ordinary fossil-fuel-based plastic production. The paper also notes that pyrolysis facilities release volatile organic compounds, fine particles, and a group of cancer-linked chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Those emissions, the authors wrote, fall hardest on communities that are mostly low-income or marginalized.<\/p>\n

A 2023 report by Beyond Plastics<\/a> found that of 11 chemical recycling plants then operating in the U.S., seven were sited in environmental justice communities. Six of those seven were pyrolysis plants.<\/p>\n

Pyrolysis can reduce some forms of pollution while creating others, and the people who breathe those other emissions are usually not the ones making decisions about where plants are built.<\/p>\n

How the public weighed in<\/p>\n

The EPA gave the public 45 days to submit comments, from March 20 to May 4, 2026. Environmental groups organized quickly. A group including the Public Interest Research Group, Environment America, and Environmental Action collected and submitted more than 27,000 comments<\/a> asking the agency to keep treating pyrolysis as incineration. The groups argue that pyrolysis can release up to 96 different toxic chemicals, including some linked to cancer and harm to developing children.<\/p>\n

At a public hearing, a dozen speakers from Moms Clean Air Force testified against the change. Kiya Stanford, the group\u2019s Georgia organizer, said the proposed rule \u201cfeels like a move to prioritize polluters over people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judith Enck, a former EPA regional administrator who now runs Beyond Plastics, told Inside Climate News she was puzzled by how the change was announced. \u201cI thought, could it be a mistake, or are they quietly trying to push this through?\u201d she asked. The pyrolysis paragraph was buried inside a 17-page rule about wood waste burning.<\/p>\n

Where to follow what happens next<\/p>\n

The official record for this rule lives on the federal website regulations.gov, in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0068<\/a>. Every public comment, every supporting document, and the EPA\u2019s eventual decision will appear there.<\/p>\n

The first comment window closed on May 4. The EPA can still accept late comments, but it doesn\u2019t have to count them. The bigger opportunity for public input is still ahead: the EPA said the comments collected on this docket will help it draft a new, separate rule focused entirely on advanced recycling. That second rule has not yet been published. When it is, the public will get another comment period of at least 30 days, often 45 to 60.<\/p>\n

What You Can Do<\/p>\n