Federal rules attempting to regulate new recycling processes and potential contaminants continued a back-and-forth that has lasted at least five years. | John Hanson Pye/Shutterstock
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn rules first proposed by the Biden administration that addressed chemical recycling and had attracted significant industry opposition.
In a document set to publish July 9, the current Trump administration-led EPA said it is withdrawing “significant new use rules,” or SNURs, proposed in June 2023 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These rules would have required companies that intend to “process any of 18 specific chemical substances derived from plastic waste for an activity that is proposed as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity” to allow the agency to assess risks and regulate the significant new use if needed.
“The 18 proposed rules also identify as an additional significant new use, manufacturing or processing of the chemical substances using feedstocks that contain any amount of contaminants listed in the proposed rules,” the proposal added.
During the extended public comment period for the 2023 proposal, chemical recycling firm Brightmark suggested additional time for stakeholders to consider “a number of key terms and potential effects of the proposed rule which would merit additional clarification.”
In its comments at the time, Freepoint Eco-Systems, which has been involved in several chemical recycling projects, said the rules put undue administrative burdens on industry, and asserted there were inconsistencies between the policy and the EPA’s mission, including that:
- Imposing regulatory obstacles for realistic recycling scenarios runs counter to EPA’s stated objective of developing a circular economy for plastics.
- Focusing on feedstock purity deviates from EPA’s approach to regulating chemicals under TSCA.
Michigan-based Dow cited in its comments the lack of a de minimis level for impurities, which “makes analytical testing and quantification impractical.” The company recommended EPA specify the chemicals of concern and identify a content threshold, among other suggestions for increasing clarity.
Ironically, the 2023 proposal purported to be addressing a lack of clarity surrounding pyrolysis, the most common method of chemical recycling: “As a result of recent market trends, especially with respect to the increased processing of waste plastics, the EPA received several inquiries about OSWI (other solid waste incineration) units and the applicability of OSWI regulations to pyrolysis/combustion units for a variety of process and feedstock type,” the proposal stated. “Based on these requests and the absence of a statutory definition of pyrolysis in the CAA (Clean Air Act), the Agency believed that there was considerable confusion in the regulated community regarding the applicability of OSWI to pyrolysis/combustion units. Moreover, the term ‘pyrolysis/combustion’ is not defined in the current OSWI regulation, nor is it included in the definition of ‘Institutional waste incineration unit.'”
In comparison, no official company comments were submitted during the public comment period for a 2020 proposal from the Trump EPA that, among other issues, sought to remove the reference to “pyrolysis/combustion units” from the OSWI definition of ‘‘municipal waste combustion unit.” However, the agency “received significant adverse comments on that revision,” largely from environmental and tribal groups, the agency said in its own withdrawal in 2023.
Plastics makers applaud withdrawal
In a statement, Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, said the rules “imposed unnecessary burdens and hindered investments in the advanced recycling industry.”
Eisenberg went on to say the SNURs lacked the required scientific basis required under TSCA, exceeded EPA’s authority by attempting to regulate feedstock impurities, and “failed to recognize the thermal and chemical transformation processes — such as pyrolysis — that can remove these impurities during the advanced recycling process.”
In a February 2025 blog post, Eisenberg lauded the first Trump administration for its “great progress on updating and clarifying federal policy to treat the re-manufacture of plastic (and other materials) like similar manufacturing processes.” He urged the current EPA to re-introduce its proposed regulations from 2020, adding that “companies need regulatory certainty if they’re going to invest in technologies and facilities designed to last for decades” and “there are few more surefire paths to stifle innovation than ambiguous regulations.”
Recycling industry stakeholders have expressed similar concerns about inconsistency and uncertainty in how chemical recycling will be handled amid federal administration changes and state-level initiatives that are creating a patchwork of regulations.
For example, as California works to finalize regulations for its extended producer responsibility law for packaging, proposed procedures for handling new and emerging technologies — including chemical recycling — have drawn debate, especially from environmental groups. One recent draft placed the responsibility on the requesting facility to prove a new technology meets state requirements.
Recycling stakeholders in both Europe and the U.S. have struggled to advance chemical recycling projects, citing legislative hurdles along with high capital expenditures among the headwinds they face.
And in the past year or so, several industry groups have added nuance to their positions on chemical recycling.