The Environmental Protection Agency is considering reclassifying chemical plastic recycling facilities as manufacturers rather than incinerators under the Clean Air Act, a move environmental advocates say would immediately eliminate federal air pollution controls at those sites and expose surrounding communities to toxic emissions.
The agency has solicited public comment on a potential rule that would shift pyrolysis plants — which use heat to break down plastics — out of Clean Air Act Section 129, which limits emissions of nine air pollutants including toxic particulates, heavy metals, and dioxins, the Associated Press reported April 15.
If finalized, the reclassification would move pyrolysis facilities to Section 111, a manufacturing standard that critics say covers fewer pollutants, with no replacement federal rule ready for years. Environmental lawyers warn that the regulatory gap could be immediate: facilities could legally shut off installed pollution controls the day any such change takes effect.
A regulation that could switch off overnight
John Walke, who leads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s national clean air advocacy, laid out what he said would be the practical consequence of the reclassification.
“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,” Walke said. “Why would they do that? Why would they turn off an installed pollution control device? Because it costs money to operate them.”
Walke also said the EPA’s plan is skipping crucial steps in a lengthy, required rulemaking process, and that the NRDC plans to challenge any final rollback in court.
Industry calls the change a clarification
Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers and the American Chemistry Council’s plastics advocacy lead, said pyrolysis is fundamentally different from incineration and should not be regulated as such.
“The definition of incineration is to destroy it, right? You’re literally trying to make it go away,” Eisenberg said. “That’s not what they’re doing here. They are trying to preserve it and recover the materials, which is recycling, which is manufacturing.”
Eisenberg said other sections of the Clean Air Act would still apply and that facilities receive state permits, so emissions would remain controlled regardless of the reclassification. He described pyrolysis plants as “so heavily regulated.”
Former EPA official calls it a jackpot for industry
Judith Enck, a former EPA regional administrator who now heads the advocacy group Beyond Plastics, said the proposed change would represent 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,” Enck 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.”
Enck also said the EPA buried the proposed change inside a March rulemaking notice on air curtain incinerators, describing the paragraph soliciting comment on pyrolysis as a “bombshell” buried in an unrelated proceeding. The EPA dismissed that criticism, pointing to its press release on the matter.
At a public hearing last week, members of the nonprofit Moms Clean Air Force and others urged the EPA to keep pyrolysis units regulated as incinerators. Kiya Stanford, the group’s Georgia state organizer, said in her testimony that the proposed change “feels like a move to prioritize polluters over people.”
How pyrolysis works and who operates it
Chemical recycling uses heat or chemicals to break down plastics into liquid and gas that can yield an oil-like mixture or basic chemicals for producing new plastics or fuels. Pyrolysis, the main method, has been regulated as incineration under the Clean Air Act since a 2005 final rule that included “pyrolysis/combustion units” under Section 129. The EPA said that rule was vague and caused confusion for the industry.
According to the American Chemistry Council, six pyrolysis plants currently operate in Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, and Georgia. One facility is under construction in Arizona, another in West Virginia, and a small test project is running in Maryland. The ACC has lobbied states and Congress to classify chemical recycling as manufacturing; 25 states now do, and legislation is pending in Congress.
More than 90% of plastics are not recycled, according to the ACC. Industry groups say chemical recycling can help change that; environmental groups say pyrolysis is waste disposal rather than true recycling and a distraction from reducing plastic production.
A second run at the same change
The EPA proposed a nearly identical reclassification in 2020 during President Trump’s first term. The Biden administration withdrew that proposed modification. Eisenberg said the number of proposals to build pyrolysis plants has dwindled in recent years, attributing part of the slowdown to the permitting process. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin toured ExxonMobil’s Baytown, Texas facility to observe chemical recycling operations.